Action, Deviance, and Guidance

Abstracta (2):41-59 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I argue that we should give up the fight to rescue causal theories of action from fundamental challenges such as the problem of deviant causal chains; and that we should rather pursue an account of action based on the basic intuition that control identifies agency. In Section 1 I introduce causalism about action explanation. In Section 2 I present an alternative, Frankfurt’s idea of guidance. In Section 3 I argue that the problem of deviant causal chains challenges causalism in two important respects: first, it emphasizes that causalism fails to do justice to our basic intuition that control is necessary for agency. Second, it provides countless counterexamples to causalism, which many recent firemen have failed to extinguish – as I argue in some detail. Finally, in Section 4 I argue, contra Al Mele, that control does not require the attribution of psychological states as causes.
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-11-23
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Intention.Anscombe, G. E. M.
Practical Reality.Dancy, Jonathan

View all 68 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
972 ( #3,153 of 50,092 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
51 ( #11,558 of 50,092 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.