A Refutation of Hume’s Theory of Causality
Robert Gray Hume Studies Volume 2, Number 2 (November, 1976), 76-85. Your use of the HUME STUDIES archive indicates your acceptance of HUME STUDIES’ Terms and
Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.humesociety.org/hs/about/terms.html. HUME STUDIES’ Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior
permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you may use content in the HUME STUDIES archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Each copy of any part of a HUME STUDIES transmission must contain the same copyright notice that
appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
For more information on HUME STUDIES contact [email protected]
http://www.humesociety.org/hs/
76.
A REFUTATION
OF HUME'S
THEORY OF CAUSALITY'
Given H u m e ' s conceptions of space and t i m e ,
which I t a k e t o be fundamental t o h i s t h e o r y of c a u s a l i t y ,
it i s n o t always p o s s i b l e t o meet a l l of t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s
t,
hose
d e f i n i t i v e o f t h e c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n , h.
" g e n e r a l r u l e s , by which w e may know when" o b j e c t s r e a l l y
a r e "causes o r e f f e c t s t o each o t h e r " (T.173).
T o show
t h i s , it w i l l be n e c e s s a r y , f i r s t , t o g i v e a very b r i e f
e x p o s i t i o n of H u m e ' s conceptions of space and time, w i t h
r e g a r d c h i e f l y t o t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e n a t u r e of
motion.
Then, a f t e r b r i e f l y summarizing h i s views on
t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n , I s h a l l proceed
I t should be noted f i r s t ,
immediately t o my o b j e c t i o n .
however, t h a t , i f one i n s t a n c e of a c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n
can be found t o which Hume's a n a l y s i s w i l l n o t apply,
t h a t , presumably, would be s u f f i c i e n t t o r e f u t e h i s t h e o r y .
I s h a l l n o t h e r e r e p e a t a l l of H u m e ' s arguments
S u f f i c e it t o
f o r t h e i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of space and t i m e .
s a y , h e t a k e s it t o be f a i r l y obvious t h a t each must
c o n s i s t of a f i n i t e number of i n d i v i s i b l e p o i n t s o r
moments, each of which i s d i s t i n c t , and t h e r e f o r e s e p a r a t e ,
from e v e r y o t h e r , and, i n t h e case of t i m e , none of which
e v e r "co-exist.n
Only one of h i s arguments f o r t h e
i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of space need concern us h e r e .
The
argument i s b r i e f :
The i n f i n i t e d i v i s i b i l i t y o f space i m p l i e s t h a t
o f time, as i s e v i d e n t from t h e n a t u r e o f motion.
I f t h e l a t t e r , t h e r e f o r e , be i m p o s s i b l e , t h e
( T . 311
f o r m e r mu8t be e q u a l l y s o .
The argument h e r e s e e m s , roughly, t o be t h i s :
t h e motion of an o b j e c t can be d e s c r i b e d only by g i v i n g
i t s p o s i t i o n s a t v a r i o u s t i m e s ( t h e n a t u r e of motion).
I f , t h e r e f o r e , an o b j e c t , such a s a b a l l moving along a
l i n e AEi, can be a s s i g n e d an i n f i n i t e number of p o s i t i o n s
t a k e n between A and B ( t h e i n f i n i t e d i v i s i b i l i t y of s p a c e ) ,
77.
t h e t i m e taken t o t r a v e r s e AB m u s t a l s o be i n f i n i t e ,
u.,
m u s t c o n s i s t of an i n f i n i t e number of i n s t a n t s .
But t h e
f i n i t e t i m e taken t o t r a v e r s e t h e d i s t a n c e
is not
i n f i n i t e l y d i v i s i b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , n e i t h e r i s t h e l i n e AB.
This argument, of c o u r s e , r e l i e s upon t h e assumption t h a t ,
i n t r a v e r s i n g t h e l i n e AB, t h e b a l l w i l l occupy each of
t h e p o i n t s (whether f i n i t e or i n f i n i t e ) of which it consists.
The argument can a l s o be t u r n e d around so as t o
d e r i v e t h e f i n i t e d i v i s i b i l i t y of t i m e from t h a t of
Here, t o o , it m u s t be assumed t h a t t h e b a l l
space.
occupies each of t h o s e i n s t a n t s which c o n s t i t u t e t h e t i m e
t a k e n t o t r a v e r s e t h e l i n e AB.
I t t h u s seems c l e a r
t h a t , on H u m e ' s view, t h e b a l l ' s motion can be n e i t h e r
more n o r less d i v i s i b l e t h a n t h e space and t i m e it t a k e s
I n i t s motion from A t o B , t h e n , t h e b a l l w i l l
t o move.
occupy f i r s t one, t h e n a n o t h e r of t h e p o i n t s l y i n g between
A and B u n t i l f i n a l l y it h a s occupied them a l l and has
But, i n s a y i n g t h a t it w i l l occupy
moved from A t o B.
f i r s t one and t h e n a n o t h e r , w e are s a y i n g n o t h i n g more
than t h a t it s u c c e s s i v e l y occupies a series of p o i n t s ,
and, i n s o f a r as i t s occupation of t h e s e d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s
i s s u c c e s s i v e , it t a k e s t i m e .
W e are in a position,
t h e n , t o d e f i n e motion ( a t l e a s t motion along a s t r a i g h t
l i n e ) as " t h e s u c c e s s i v e occupation of a d j a c e n t , l i n e a r l y
ordered p o i n t s o r places. "
Now, t h i s i s very d i f f e r e n t from t h e u s u a l conc e p t i o n of motion.
The b a l l ' s motion between any two
It
a d j a c e n t p o i n t s i s n o t a moving from one t o t h e o t h e r .
is simply i t s being i n t h e one p l a c e a t one i n s t a n t and
i t s being i n t h e o t h e r place a t t h e next.
It is not a
continuous motion, b u t t h e occupation of d i s c r e t e p l a c e s
I t i s , a s it were, a series o f
a t different t i m e s .
instantaneous leaps.
T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i f it i s a c c u r a t e , may a l s o
s e r v e t o account f o r H u m e ' s i l l - u n d e r s t o o d p r o p e n s i t y f o r
\
78.
r e f e r r i n g t o cause and e f f e c t as o b j e c t s r a t h e r than as
events.
Events must, on Hume's view of t i m e a t l e a s t , b e
e s s e n t i a l l y static.
Unlike t h o s e of s p a c e , t h e i n d i v i s i k k
p a r t s of t i m e never " c o - e x i s t , " and t h e r e can be no motion
or change in a s i n g l e i n s t a n t .
Hence, given t h e i n s t a n t s
tl, t2, and t3, and an o b j e c t X, t h e n , i f X i s changing,
w e may say t h a t a t tl it i s i n a s t a t e or c o n d i t i o n X a ;
a t t2, a s t a t e Xb; and a t t3, a s t a t e X c .
What w e w i l l
have, t h e n , is, i n e f f e c t , t h r e e d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t s
That t h i s p r o c e s s may
existing a t three different t i m e s .
g i v e t h e appearance o f c o n t i n u i t y is t o be e x p l a i n e d s o l e l y
by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e o b j e c t from one
i n s t a n t t o t h e n e x t w i l l b e , i n most cases, almost imperceptibly s m a l l . 3
I have been concerned so f a r t o g i v e o n l y an
o u t l i n e of H u m e ' s views on t h e n a t u r e of t i m e , s p a c e , and
motion.
What I s h a l l a t t e m p t t o show i s t h a t , from what
h e s a i d about t i m e , space, and, i n d i r e c t l y , motion, it
f o l l o w s t h a t h i s understanding o f t h e n a t u r e of t h e causee f f e c t r e l a t i o n cannot be c o r r e c t .
L e t u s t a k e t h e following example:
I f two
b i l l i a r d b a l l s s t r i k e each o t h e r i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner,
The b a l l s '
t h e y w i l l both come t o a complete s t o p .
s t r i k i n g w e c a l l t h e cause; t h e i r s t o p p i n g , t h e e f f e c t .
I n Humean terminology, t h e s e e v e n t s would be conjoined
" o b j e c t s , " and, as d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t s , t h e y would be
d i s c r i m i n a b l e ; t h a t i s , t h e y would be two s e p a r a t e and
d i s t i n c t t h i n g s ( o b j e c t s or e v e n t s ) which, when con j o i n e d
i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner, c o n s t i t u t e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r causee f f e c t relation.
As H u m e would l a t e r p u t this, "Every
e v e n t i s a d i s t i n c t e v e n t from i t s cause."4
The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h i s view of c a u s a t i o n and the r e l a t i o n between
c a u s e and e f f e c t i s t h a t t h e r e q u i s i t e c o n j u n c t i o n cannot
be o b t a i n e d .
I n o r d e r t o show t h i s , it w i l l b e n e c e s s a r y
f i r s t t o g i v e a b r i e f o u t l i n e of Hume's remarks on
causation.
79.
The f i r s t s t e p i n H u m e ' s argument i s t o d e t e r mine t h e r e l a t i o n s between o b j e c t s t h a t g i v e rise t o t h e
i d e a of c a u s a t i o n .
The f i r s t of t h e s e i s c o n t i g u i t y .
Every cause i s contiguous w i t h i t s e f f e c t .
Such con-
t i g u i t y must be b o t h s p a t i a l and temporal (T. 173, r u l e s
As Hume p u t s it, "nothing can o p e r a t e i n a
t i m e o r p l a c e , which i s e v e r s o l i t t l e remov'd from t h o s e
of i t s e x i s t e n c e " (T. 7 5 ) .
Where such c o n t i g u i t y appears
t o be l a c k i n g , w e f i n d upon c l o s e r examination t h a t t h e y
a r e connected by a chain of causes such t h a t t h e e f f e c t i s
f i n a l l y caused by an e v e n t which i s contiguous w i t h it
1 and 2 ) .
(T. 7 5 ) .
I n o t h e r words, making a d i s t i n c t i o n between
remote aqd proximate c a u s e s , we may say t h a t t h e remote
cause is connected w i t h t h e e f f e c t through a c h a i n of
c a u s e s , the l a s t one of which i s t h e proximate c a u s e , and
t h a t t h e proximate cause i s t h a t event which i s contiguous
w i t h and which produces o r causes t h e e f f e c t .
Immediately subsequent t o t h i s argument, H u m e
argues f o r t h e f u r t h e r r e l a t i o n t h a t t h e cause m u s t be
prior t o its effect.
To do away w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n of
p r i o r i t y of cause t o e f f e c t , he a r g u e s , would e n t a i l
" t h e u t t e r a n n i h i l a t i o n of t i m e , " s i n c e , i f every c a u s e
were "co-temporary" w i t h i t s e f f e c t , t h e r e would b e no
s u c c e s s i o n , "and a l l o b j e c t s m u s t be c o - e x i s t e n t " (T. 7 6 ) .
The argument here r e l i e s h e a v i l y upon t h e view t h a t t i m e
i s a s u c c e s s i o n of i n d i v i s i b l e i n s t a n t s , and I b e l i e v e
Hume's view of c a u s a t i o n w i l l s t a n d o r f a l l w i t h h i s
conception of t i m e . 5
I m u s t pause h e r e t o answer a p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n .
I t might be noted t h a t , a f t e r g i v i n g t h i s argument t o show
t h e n e c e s s a r y p r i o r i t y of cause t o e f f e c t , H u m e a l l o w s
t h a t " t h e a f f a i r i s of no g r e a t importance" (T. 7 6 ) . I
b e l i e v e t h i s i s so, on h i s view, because he is n o t h e r e
concerned so much t o e l u c i d a t e t h e n a t u r e of c a u s a l i t y
as t h e i d e a of necessary connection.
When, however, he
80.
comes l a t e r t o s t a t e t h e " r u l e s by which t o judge of
causes and effects," t h o s e r u l e s which I t a k e t o be d e f i n i t i v e of t h e c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n , t h a t " t h e cause m u s t
b e p r i o r t o i t s e f f e c t " i s among them (T. 1 7 3 ) .
Having made t h e s e two p o i n t s , t h a t cause and
effect m u s t be contiguous i n b o t h space and time and t h a t
the c a u s e must precede t h e e f f e c t , t h e r e i s only one p o i n t
which remains t o complete t h e d e f i n i t i o n .
That, of
From H u m e ' s
c o u r s e , i s t h e i d e a of c o n s t a n t conjunction.
f i r s t d e f i n i t i o n of " c a u s e , " however, "An o b j e c t
p r e c e d e n t and contiguous t o a n o t h e r , and where a l l the
o b j e c t s resembling t h e former are p l a c ' d i n l i k e r e l a t i o n s
of precedency and c o n t i g u i t y t o t h o s e o b j e c t s , t h a t
resemble t h e l a t t e r " (T. 1 7 0 ) , it is clear t h a t t h e
n o t i o n of c o n s t a n t conjunction i s r e d u c i b l e t o t h a t o f
c o n t i g u i t y , i n t h e s e n s e t h a t an o b j e c t A can be s a i d t o
b e t h e cause of an o b j e c t B only i f t h e two are always
contiguous i n both space and t i m e (and, of c o u r s e , i f
it always precedes i t s e f f e c t ) .
This would s e e m t o be
t h e p o i n t of Hume's remark i n t h e T r e a t i s e , p. 87. Rules
f o u r through e i g h t (T. 173-174) would seem t o c o n s t i t u t e
j u s t an e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s
requirement.
This, of c o u r s e , i s o n l y t h e b r i e f e s t p o s s i b l e
o u t l i n e of Hume's a n a l y s i s o f t h e c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n .
I have intended t o make only t h e t h r e e p o i n t s t h a t , on
H u m e ' s view, cause and e f f e c t are s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t
e v e n t s ; they are always contiguous; and t h e cause must
precede t h e e f f e c t .
This, I t h i n k , i s j u s t s u f f i c i e n t
t o provide an adequate b a s i s f o r my argument.
Consider, f o r a moment, t h e motion of a b i l l i a r d
b a l l a l o n g a s t r a i g h t l i n e extending from t h e i n i t i a l
p o s i t i o n A t o t h e f i n a l p o s i t i o n J d u r i n g the t i m e p e r i o d
e x t e n d i n g from tl t o tlO. The b a l l ' s motion w i l l
c o n s i s t i n i t s b e i n g i n p o s i t i o n A a t tl, B a t tZ... J
a t tlO.
I f w@ wish t o account f o r t h e b a l l ' s moving
81.
from A t o J, w e may s a y t h a t t h e cause was t h e b a l l ' s
being s t r u c k by t h e cue s t i c k .
The e f f e c t w i l l b e , pre-,
When t h e b a l l i s s t r u c k ,
sumably, i t s moving from A t o J.
It i s n o t u n t i l t10
however, a t tl, it i s i n p o s i t i o n A.
t h a t it i s i n p o s i t i o n J.
NOW, t h e only o b j e c t or e v e n t
which i s s p a t i a l l y and temporally contiguous w i t h and
p r i o r t o t h e b a l l ' s b e i n g a t J a t t10 is t h e b a l l ' s being
a t I a t tg. I t i s clear, t h e n , t h a t i f anything i s t h e
cause of i t s being a t J a t tlO,it i s i t s being a t I a t
t g and n o t i t s b e i n g s t r u c k by t h e cue s t i c k a t A a t tl.
Furthermore, i f w e d e s c r i b e t h e o b j e c t or event which i s
t h e c a u s e of i t s motion, r a t h e r t h a n i t s being a t J a t tlO,
w e f i n d t h a t t h i s i s n o t i t s being s t r u c k , b u t i t s being
The e f f e c t ,
i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e cue s t i c k a t A a t tl.
t h e n , w i l l \ b e , n o t i t s motion from A t o J, b u t i t s b e i n g
a t B a t t2. However, i f w e c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t t o be
t h e b a l l ' s moving or going from A a t tl t o B a t t 2 , t h e n
t h e cause would n o t b e what happens a t t l , s i n c e t h a t i s
a p a r t of t h e e f f e c t , b u t a t to. But a t to t h e cue s t i c k
had n o t y e t c o n t a c t e d t h e b a l l ! 6
The f o r e g o i n g argument i s n o t c o n c l u s i v e ; howT o r e p e a t some i m p o r t a n t
e v e r , i t can be s t r e n g t h e n e d .
t i m e i s composed of i n d i v i s i b l e i n s t a n t s , and a
points:
cause occupies t h e i n s t a n t immediately p r e c e d i n g t h e
i n s t a n t occupied by the e f f e c t .
W e may r e t u r n now t o my
e a r l i e r b i l l i a r d b a s 1 example: two b i l l i a r d b a l l s s t r i k e
each o t h e r i n such a way t h a t they b o t h come t o a complete
W e may suppose t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n s of t h e s e b a l l s ,
stop.
when t h e y s t r i k e , w i l l be A and B , and w e may r e f e r t o
t h e i r p o s i t i o n s p r i o r t o t h e i r s t r i k i n g by number s u b s c r i p t s
Now, l e t u s s a y t h a t a t tl t h e b a l l s w i l l be i n p o s i t i o n s
A2 and B2; a t t2, i n p o s i t i o n Aland B1; and, a t t3, i n
A t t 4 t h e y w i l l , a g a i n , be i n
p o s i t i o n s A and B.
p o s i t i o n s A and B.
NOW, i f t h e i r s t r i k i n g i s t h e cause of t h e i r
82.
s t o p p i n g and i f t h e i r s t r i k i n g i s d e f i n e d as t h e i r b e i n g
i n c o n t a c t , t h a t i s , as t h e i r occupying p o s i t i o n s such
t h a t p a r t s o f each b a l l a r e s p a t i a l l y contiguous, t h e n
t h e i r s t r i k i n g o c c u r s a t t3. But t h e i r s t o p p i n g a l s o
o c c u r s a t t3. I t is a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
motions, t h a t is, t h e i r s u c c e s s i v e occupation of d i f f e r e n t ,
l i n e a r l y o r d e r e d p o i n t s o r p l a c e s ends.
And, i f t h e
c a u s e i n t h i s case i s t h e i r s t r i k i n g and t h e e f f e c t t h e i r
s t o p p i n g , t h e two "events" are one and t h e same e v e n t
Note t h a t w e could n o t
occupying one and t h e same t i m e .
d e s c r i b e t h e cause a s t h e i r moving and t h e e f f e c t as t h e i r
b e i n g a t rest.
I f t h e cause i s t h e i r moving, t h e c a u s e
i s n o t , t h e n , contiguous w i t h i t s e f f e c t , s i n c e t h e i r
motion c o n s i s t s a t l e a s t of t h e i r occupation of d i f f e r e n t
p l a c e s a t s u c c e s s i v e i n s t a n t s p r i o r t o their s t o p p i n g .
I n other words, t h e i r moving w i l l c o n s i s t of t h e i r
occupying A1 and B1 a t t2, followed by their occupying
A and B a t t3, and their being a t r e s t w i l l c o n s i s t of
t h e i r occupying A and B a t t3, followed by t h e i r occupying
A and B a t t4. S i n c e , i n t h i s case, a p a r t of t h e c a u s e
is what happens a t A1 and B1 a t t2 and a p a r t of t h e
e f f e c t , what happens a t A and B a t t 4 , t h e two e v e n t s are
n o t contiguous ( h e r e i t must be remembered t h a t w e are
s p e a k i n g o f t h e s e e v e n t s as e v e n t s r a t h e r t h a n as o b j e c t s ,
a move which i s n o t r e a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f
H u m e ' s t h e o r y ) , b u t a f u r t h e r and more i m p o r t a n t problem
h e r e is t h a t t h e i r occupying p o s i t i o n s A and B a t t4 is
a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t e v e n t or o b j e c t from t h e i r
occupying A and B a t t3, which i s , i n i t s t u r n , a
s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t e v e n t from t h e i r occupying A1 and
There i s , t h e n , an i n t e r v e n i n g e v e n t between
B1 a t t2.
t h e e v e n t s o f t2 and t4 which c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t of t h e
c a u s e and p a r t of t h e e f f e c t .
I n o t h e r words, t h e cause
and e f f e c t a r e a s follows: t2t3( o r AIBl AB) and
There is an e v e n t which i s s h a r e d
t3t4( o r AB AB).
between them ( t h e i r being a t A and B a t t3) as an
83.
i n t e g r a l p a r t of each, and t h e cause and e f f e c t a r e n o t ,
t h e r e f o r e , s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t , contiguous, o r
successive.
I t might, of course, be o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e i r
s t o p p i n g does n o t occur u n t i l tl o r , i n o t h e r words, t h a t
t h e i r stopping does n o t occur u n t i l & i n s t a n t a f t e r t h e i r
striking.
This i s , I t h i n k , an obviously ad hoc o b j e c t b n ,
f o r w e do o r d i n a r i l y t h i n k t h a t t h e b a l l s s t o p when t h e y
s t r i k e and n o t an i n s t a n t l a t e r .
However, t h e o b j e c t i o n
can be e a s i l y m e t .
I f w e assume t h a t t h e e f f e c t i s
t h e i r s t o p p i n g or t h e i r being i n c o n t a c t a t t 4 , it i s
clear t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e whatever between t h e
cause and t h e e f f e c t e x c e p t t h a t some time has elapsed.
The t w o o b j e c t s ( a t t3 and t,) are i d e n t i c a l : t h e y are
one and t h e same.
But i f t h i s i s denied, t h e o b j e c t i o n
may be m e t i n t h i s way: t h e i r being i n c o n t a c t a t t3 is
t h e cause of t h e i r being i n c o n t a c t ( o r , a t l e a s t , of
t h e i r n o t moving f a r t h e r ) a t t 4 , and t h e cause of t h e i r
being i n c o n t a c t a t t5, and so on.
Now, i f w e trace
t h i s chain o f causes backwards, w e f i n d t h a t every e f f e c t
( a s should be t h e case by r u l e s t h r e e and f o u r ) h a s t h e
same cause and every cause t h e same e f f e c t
except t h e i r
--
b e i n g i n c o n t a c t a t t3, which i s t h e e f f e c t of t h e i r b e i n g
in p o s i t i o n s A1 and B1 a t t2, and two very d i f f e r e n t
causes w i l l have p r e c i s e l y t h e same e f f e c t .
The o n l y way t o avoid t h e conclusion t h a t cause
and e f f e c t are, a t l e a s t i n t h i s c a s e , one and t h e same
e v e n t , i s t o say t h a t t h e cause o f t h e i r stopping i s n o t
t h e i r being i n p o s i t i o n s A and B a t t3, b u t t h e i r being
i n p o s i t i o n s A1 and B1 a t t2. I n o t h e r words, it could
be argued t h a t t h e cause i s n o t t h e i r s t r i k i n g a t a l l b u t
t h e i r moving toward one another ( t h e i r being a t A1 and B1
a t t 2 ) . On t h i s view, it could be allowed t h a t t h e i r
s t r i k i n g and t h e i r s t o p p i n g a r e one and t h e same event or
t w o d i f f e r e n t ways of d e s c r i b i n g t h e event, and it would
s t i l l be t h e case t h a t t h e i r cause occurred a t t h e
84.
immediately preceding i n s t a n t .
Now, t h i s o b j e c t i o n
a p p e a r s t o b e compelling and i n o r d e r t o show t h a t it i s
n o t , it w i l l be necessary t o view t h e e v e n t s i n q u e s t i o n
L e t us say t h a t , r a t h e r
i n a somewhat d i f f e r e n t l i g h t .
t h a n t h e b a l l s ' s t r i k i n g being t h e cause of t h e i r s t o p p i n g ,
b a l l A ' s s t r i k i n g b a l l B i s t h e cause o f B ' s s t o p p i n g and
s t r i k i n g A i s t h e cause of A ' s s t o p p i n g .
I believe
it w i l l be admitted t h a t t h i s i s no more t h a n j u s t a
d i f f e r e n t way of d e s c r i b i n g t h e event w i t h o u t changing it.
Now, i f t h e o b j e c t i o n were accepted, it would f o l l o w t h a t
t h e cause o f b a l l A ' s s t o p p i n g a t t3 i s b a l l B ' s b e i n g i n
p o s i t i o n B1 a t t2. I n t h i s case, t h e cause i s c l e a r l y
a n t e c e d e n t t o and temporally contiguous w i t h i t s e f f e c t .
I t i s n o t , however, s p a t i a l l y contiguous w i t h it, s i n c e
t h e p o s i t i o n B l i e s between t h e p o s i t i o n s A and B1.
B's
Robert Gray
McMaster U n i v e r s i t y .
1.
I wish t o thank my c o l l e a g u e and former t e a c h e r ,
P r o f e s s o r James Noxon, f o r h i s c o m e n t s on an
e a r l i e r v e r s i o n of t h i s paper.
2.
All r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e Treatise o f Human Nature
( a b b r e v i a t e d TI are t o t h e Selby-Bigge e d i t i o n
(Oxford, 1888).
3.
T h a t Hume himself understood t h i s consequence i s
f a i r l y clear.
Note h i s own example, T. 35.
4.
An I n q u i r y Concerning Human Understandinq, ed.
C h a r l e s W. Hendel ( I n d i a n a p o l i s : Bobbs-Merrill,
1953) p. 44.
5.
For i n s t a n c e , i f t h e f a c t t h a t A c a u s e s B e n t a i l s
t h a t (1) A i s p r i o r t o B i n a l i n e a r l y o r d e r e d
series, ( 2 ) t h a t A i s s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from B,
so t h a t t h e r e can be n o common o r o v e r l a p p i n g
elements w i t h i n t h e series, and (3) t h a t A i s
contiguous w i t h B so t h a t t h e r e can be no t h i r d
i n s t a n t C which i s w i t h i n t h e series and between A
and B, t h e n it would seem clear t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t
A causes B e n t a i l s a l s o t h a t t i m e cannot be
infinitely divisible.
6.
85.
This argument i s very s i m i l a r t o one proposed by
J u s t u s Hartnack ("Some Remarks on C a u s a l i t y " ,
J o u r n a l of Philosophy 50 (19531, 466-71).
Hartnack's argument f a i l s t o t a k e account of Hume's
t h e o r y of space and t i m e , however, and, w i t h t h a t
taken i n t o account, I t a k e i t t o be obvious t h a t
Hume's t h e o r y has n o t y e t been r e f u t e d (he need only
r e p l y t h a t it is n o t necessary t h a t t h e cue c o n t a c t
the ball.
The cause i s what happens the i n s t a n t
b e f o r e , I>.,
i t s approaching t h e b a l l ) , although
it h a s been made t o appear very odd.