[image: kad-esh.org]

Causation

One of the more difficult challenges for those who seek an understanding of human conduct lies in how we try to figure out cause/effect relationships. We ask the question “What caused that airplane to crash” knowing in advance that there was almost certainly a chain of events that preceded the effect. Sorting out those factors that contributed most to it is necessary, however, if we are to prevent similar events in the future. And the same reasoning applies to a wide range of topics and issues from health care, to education, to energy, to nuclear proliferation, to… you name it. Moreover, no single discipline seems to be well enough equipped to deal with this troubling issue even though it will surface sooner or later in the most profound way in each of them. This essay highlights part of that discussion.

At first glance the cause/effect relationship between two events appears to be very simple. Even a child can make the connection: A fist in the nose caused the nose to bleed. But on closer examination, establishing “cause” is arguably the most difficult of all human tasks. Typically, there is no single cause to a single event, rather there is a chain of events that preceded the one under examination. Remove any one of them in the chain, and the effect disappears. Indeed, when we observe an effect from the broadest perspective, and conceptualize the many preceding causes that led up to that single event, we can reasonably surmise that millions, or trillions, or more preceding events all contributed—however minutely—to that singular event that we call the “effect.” Ultimately, we must conclude that every single effect that happens anywhere in the universe that we can observe had virtually an infinite number of preceding causal events starting with the “Big Bang” and cascading outward thereafter toward infinity.

If you agree with that argument (and logic compels you to do so), then the same reasoning also compels you to the position that errors in judgments about cause/effect are so commonplace as to make such simple distinctions about cause a mockery of human logic. If 1,000 events all preceded a single effect under examination in a causal chain, the removal of any one of which would have lead to the non occurrence of that effect, who is to say that one of those preceding events was more important than any other?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that we could hold no one accountable for any of his or her actions. And while that might lead to a happy and confusing state of affairs for criminals and ne’re do wells and others who like disorder on a grand scale, it would drive the rest of us bonkers.

So what are we to do about this connection we call “cause and effect?” It is an important question because most laws are based on some distorted view of what constitutes cause and effect. These distortions often reflect an ideology that is further steeped in biased beliefs which are further enforced by those who likely have never given this discussion a moment’s thought. Trying to understand this state affairs can be too late to help an innocent prisoner at all. Nor does it relieve hunger anywhere. In total, these are the conditions that can account for many injustices.

Those best able to dissect this issue are probably philosophers. After all, logic falls within their domain. Clearly, it is not an issue for legislators to decide. Or lawyers. Or those with money and power—the very people who often make such decisions. So who can and should decide how we deal with bad reasoning about cause/effect that leads to injustices?

At some point in this discussion, the concept of “free will” must be considered. When you or I impose our will on events, we establish our own path of causality that permeates all things around us. And as long as we are rational and can control our actions, we are a veritable causal source for many effects. And if each of us is further held accountable for our actions freely and willfully imposed on persons and things in our environment, we will have narrowed and isolated a lot of causal sources.

But this discussion too often becomes bogged down when we blur or fail to understand distinctions between “proximate” and “underlying” causes. A proximate cause is one that is closest to the event at hand. An underlying cause is implicit, or discoverable by analysis and logic. The two can be quite disparate. Those who impose their will that create the underlying cause, for example, do not like to discuss their actions as having anything at all to do with the observable effects. They prefer to discuss the proximate cause closest to the effects. If we were to ask “What are the causes of illiteracy, hunger, high crime rates, imprisonment rates, teen pregnancies, suicides, drug usage, or mental health issues,” we would get entirely different answers from liberals and conservatives, from rich and poor, from intellectuals and the ignorant. Proximate causes would include lack of study, failure to hunt for work, disregard for the law, court decisions, promiscuity, lack of moral fiber, and lack of family values. Underlying causes would include poverty, laws that favor the wealthy, callous disregard for humanity, greed, and evil.

Which set of values is the “correct” set depends on one’s background, education, indoctrination, family, freedom to think and to reason, moral distinctions, and their world views. Those who tend to think inductively (from the part to the whole) see the world quite differently from those who tend to think deductively (from the whole to the part). These different points of view are often overlaid with religious beliefs, not held as beliefs but as “truths.” Those who hold religious beliefs as “truths” often are incapable of discerning proximate from underlying causes at all.

I will end here while noting that events today are not unlike those of the past two or three thousand years. Many of the world’s problems stem from religious and world views, overlaid onto people and societies, and from which moral distinctions are made, rationally and irrationally, in support of one and against other points of view. A tenet of life is that we can only change the errors we acknowledge; and we only acknowledge errors through education and discussion, in particular through critical analysis of people, places, things, and events. Even those who cling to truths handed to them are no match for the keen clarity that awaits those who analyze, synthesize, and evaluate reality with the mental tools given to each of us.