In this blog post, we will philosophically consider the true cause of a causal relationship, focusing on Reid’s actor-causation theory.
Let’s say that a red ball hits a white ball that is stationary, causing the white ball to move. Hume proposed three requirements for a causal relationship to be established between the event of a red ball hitting a white ball and the event of a white ball moving. The cause must precede the effect in time, the cause and effect must appear in a temporal and spatial sequence, and there must be an “eternal conjunction” between the cause and effect. Static causation means that if the balls move in the same way in a similar situation and collide, the movement of the balls will appear in the same way. However, Reid saw that even if the three conditions that Hume mentioned in the above example are met, a causal relationship does not exist. He believed that only an agent with free will can be the cause.
In the actor-causation theory, Reid defined the cause as an entity with “double-edged abilities” and responsible for the change. Double-edged abilities are active abilities that can produce or not produce change. And the actor is an entity that has the ability to produce results, can exercise that ability, and can be held responsible for the change. Reid argues that the true cause is the actor. According to this, when a red ball hits a white ball, the white ball can only move but not stop, so the red ball cannot be the actor.
Reid also emphasized empirical evidence of causality. In his view, causality should be based on actual experience, not just logical reasoning. For example, if we can always get the same result under certain conditions through repeated experiments, then we can be sure of the causality. However, this empirical evidence can be understood at a different level from the free will of the agent. This is because free will is an internal decision that cannot be empirically observed.
From Reid’s perspective as an empiricist, the only agents within the scope of observation are humans. If a person rolls a red ball to make a white ball move, and the white ball moves, that person is the agent, and the movement of the white ball is the result. Reid believed that for such a result to occur, the agent must demonstrate dual capabilities and the agent’s motivation must be constantly combined. Reid believed that motivation is an event that occurs in the mind. In this regard, it can be argued that the motivation combined with the demonstration of the dual capabilities that produced the result is manifested as the demonstration of another dual capability, which requires another motivation. In relation to these claims, Reid saw that the intrinsic activity of the mind, such as motivation, cannot distinguish between the “arousal of motivation,” which is the exercise of the dual capabilities of the agent, and the result of motivation itself. This indicates that in the case of arousal of motivation, the agent’s ability to exercise itself is motivation, so no other motivation is needed.
Reid also had a deep discussion on human moral responsibility. He argued that the reason why humans can be held accountable for their actions is because they have free will. This free will allows humans to decide their own actions, and thus, they are morally responsible for the consequences of those actions. This goes beyond simply physical causality, emphasizing that human actions should be understood in a moral and ethical context.
However, it is possible to argue against Reid’s view that motivation and events are always combined, saying that the cause of an event is not the actor but motivation. In response, Reid supported his theory with the logic that only the constant combination does not justify the inevitability of causation. Reid emphasized the role of motivation, but argued that the mere existence of motivation is not enough. In fact, a causal relationship is established only through the process of motivation manifesting itself in action and that action resulting in a consequence.
Reid also had to resolve the problem of “consequential causes.” At the time, some philosophers, influenced by medieval philosophy, believed that the true cause of events, including human behavior, was only God, and that the actor was only a consequential cause. A consequential cause may seem to be a cause in everyday life, but it is not actually the true cause. Leid rejected this position from an empirical perspective. He argued that we can only experience the motivation and actions of the agent, and that the intervention of God in the act is something we cannot experience, so God cannot be the true cause of the event. By claiming that it is ultimately up to the agent to make the decision, Leid emphasized the meaning of human agency.
Reid also addressed philosophical issues related to the moral responsibility of the agent. He saw moral responsibility as determined not simply by external conditions, but by the agent’s free will and choice. This means that humans can control their own actions and, therefore, are morally responsible for the consequences of those actions. Reid’s arguments provided an important foundation for modern ethics, which emphasizes human moral autonomy and responsibility.
Leibniz’s theory challenges the traditional understanding of causality and highlights the importance of agents and free will. It not only explains events in the physical world, but also provides important implications for understanding human behavior and moral responsibility.
