Problems With "but For" Causation
Since but-for causation is very easy to show and does not assign culpability (but for the rain, you would not have crashed your car – the rain is not morally or legally culpable but still constitutes a cause), there is a second test used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be a legally culpable cause of the harm. This test is called proximate cause.
There are several competing theories of proximate cause.
Read more about this topic: Proximate Cause
Famous quotes containing the words problems and/or causation:
“I respect guilt. It is a dangerous but sometimes useful beast. The guilt that made me want to solve all my children’s problems meant trouble. The guilt that made me question my role in our mother-daughter squabbles proved helpful. Yes, I care about my kids’ problems, and I long to make suggestions. But these days I wait for children to ask for help, and I give it sparingly. Some things can’t be fixed, and I tell them so.”
—Susan Ferraro (20th century)
“The very hope of experimental philosophy, its expectation of constructing the sciences into a true philosophy of nature, is based on induction, or, if you please, the a priori presumption, that physical causation is universal; that the constitution of nature is written in its actual manifestations, and needs only to be deciphered by experimental and inductive research; that it is not a latent invisible writing, to be brought out by the magic of mental anticipation or metaphysical mediation.”
—Chauncey Wright (1830–1875)