Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the recent definitions of actual causation proposed by Andreas & Günther, particularly focusing on their factual difference-making account. The author argues that this definition conflates three competing types of causal accounts—factual, counterfactual, and regularity-based—demonstrating that these distinctions are ultimately meaningless. By comparing the new account against six previous definitions using key examples, the author reveals fundamental flaws that undermine the validity of all seven accounts.
The latest definition of actual causation collapses three competing theories into one, exposing a critical flaw in the entire framework of causal analysis.
Over a series of seven papers, Andreas & Günther have introduced seven definitions of actual causation and have classified them as belonging to three different, competing, types of accounts: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. I show that their most recent - factual difference-making - definition instantiates all three types, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. I further compare their novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples, revealing that this undermines all seven of their accounts.