Authors
James Hutton
University of Edinburgh
Abstract
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that every event has a cause. It remains disputed what this conclusion amounts to. Does Kant argue only for the Weak Causal Principle that every event has some cause, or for the Strong Causal Principle that every event is produced according to a universal causal law? Existing interpretations have assumed that, by Kant’s lights, there is a substantive difference between the two. I argue that this is false. Kant holds that the concept of cause contains the notion of lawful connection, so it is analytic that causes operate according to universal laws. He is explicit about this commitment, not least in his derivation of the Categorical Imperative in Groundwork III. Consequently, Kant’s move from causal rules to universal laws is much simpler than previously assumed. Given his commitments, establishing the Strong Causal Principle requires no more argument than establishing the Weak Causal Principle.
Keywords Kant  causation  laws  laws of nature  Second Analogy  categories
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.01.003
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Kant on the Necessity of Causal Relations.Toni Kannisto - 2017 - Kant-Studien 108 (4):495-516.
Epistemic Normativity in Kant's “Second Analogy”.James Hutton - 2019 - European Journal of Philosophy 27 (3):593-609.
Two Views on Nature: A Solution to Kant's Antinomy of Mechanism and Teleology.Angela Breitenbach - 2008 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (2):351 – 369.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kant’s Response to Hume in the Second Analogy: A Critique of Gerd Buchdahl’s and Michael Friedman’s Accounts.Saniye Vatansever - 2018 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 8 (2):310–346.
Kant's Response to Hume in the Second Analogy.Saniye Vatansever - 2015 - Dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago
Kant and the Laws of Nature Ed. By Michela Massimi, Angela Breitenbach.Reed Winegar - 2018 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 56 (2):377-378.
Kant's Model of Causality: Causal Powers, Laws, and Kant's Reply to Hume.Eric Watkins - 2004 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (4):449-488.
Preface: Kant and the Lawfulness of Nature.Michela Massimi - 2014 - Kant-Studien 105 (4):469-470.
Mechanical Explanation of Nature and its Limits in Kant's Critique of Judgment.Angela Breitenbach - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (4):694-711.
Laws in Biology and the Unity of Nature.Angela Breitenbach - 2017 - In Michela Massimi & Angela Breitenbach (eds.), Kant and the Laws of Nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 237-255.
Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Laws.Michael Bennett McNulty - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54:1-10.
Kant and the Laws of Nature.Michela Massimi & Angela Breitenbach (eds.) - 2017 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-22

Total views
28 ( #405,673 of 2,498,576 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #89,942 of 2,498,576 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes