引起还是辩护——理由解释行动的因果主义与非因果主义之争

Causing or Justifying——The Debate Between Causalism and Anti-causalism about the Explanation of Actions by Reasons

针对出于理由的行动如何被理由解释,学界分为因果主义和非因果主义两派。因果主义认为理由对行动的解释是因果解释,非因果主义认为理由对行动的解释不是因果解释。因果主义面临怪异因果链条的挑战:在某些情况,理由引起了动作,但这些动作不被视为行动。因果主义者试图刻画理由引起行动的正确方式以回应怪异因果链条,但这些尝试不成功。非因果主义面临对比解释难题的挑战:如果两个理由都能解释行动,只有诉诸因果事实,才能说明行动究竟出于哪个理由。文章主张一种承认理由具有因果作用的非因果主义。理由具有因果引起和非因果辩护双重作用,但只有后者才能解释行动,理由的因果事实与理由对行动的解释不相干。

In terms of how actions out of reasons can be explained by reasons,scholars are divided into causalism and anti-causalism.Causalism holds that the explanation of action by reasons is causal explanation,while anti-causalism holds that it is not causal explanation.Causalism faces the challenge of deviant causal chains:in some cases,reasons cause motions,but these motions are not actions.To respond this challenge,Causalists try to describe the right way of the causation between reasons and actions,but they failed.Anti-causalism faces the challenge of contrastive explanation:if two reasons can explain one action,only by appeal to causal facts can we explain exactly which reason the action is for.I will advocate the anti-causalism that recognizes that reasons have causal powers.Reason has the dual role of causal causing and non-causal justification,but only the latter can explain the action,and the causal facts of reasons are irrelevant to the explanation of actions by the reasons.