Abstract

Halpern and Hitchcock have used normality considerations in order to provide an analysis of actual causation. Their methodology is that of taking a set of causal scenarios and showing how their account of actual causation accords with typical judgments about those scenarios. Consequently, Halpern and Hitchcock have recently demonstrated that their theory deals with an impressive number of problem cases discussed in the literature. However, in this paper I first show that the way in which they rule out certain cases of bogus prevention leaves their account susceptible to counterexamples. I then sketch an alternative approach to prevention scenarios which draws on the observation that, in addition to abnormal causes, people usually tend to focus on abnormal effects.