Hume's Approach to Causality - Essay Example

Causality is an important part of philosophy. Understanding what causes are helps to understand how the mind functions, how it relates to the body, how it might react or how it might be influenced by other factors. Various philosophers have expressed their views on causality but objection has been raised on Humes approach to causality. Hume treats causes as nothing more than events and does not believe that it has any productive power. He asserts that it is impossible to apply laws of cause and effect. Philosophers have raised objection to this. Authors believe that his account confuses accidental correlation with causes. This paper will discuss Humes views on causality in light of recent literature. If causes make the effects happen, it implies they have the power to bring those effects about. Hume does not agree with this. He feels we can only tell what effects the cause will have only after the effect. He strongly feels causality is an illusion created by the human mind. The human mind expects certain things to happen based on prior experience. He denies the existence of causes and effects being necessary and determined. Hume further observes that not all causes are followed by effects. Fire always burns because that is the nature of fire; stones always fall but opium does not always put people to sleep. When a dice is rolled, there are various factors that would determine which of the six faces would end up at the top when it stops. Experience may educate the mind on certain outcomes but it may not always be true. Experience tells us that if a ship sails out to the sea, it might or might not come back. It could be hijacked by pirates, it could sink in the storm but it might also return without any problems. Just because it once faced a problem, does not mean it will be repeated each time. Humes doubt on strength of the belief as enforced by authors is justified. Hume asserts experience cannot lead us to the right association where cause has not been uniformly connected with the effects in the past. Experience merely leaves an impression on the memory and based on this we try to predict the effect. Depending upon the frequency of a particular outcome, we decide the cause and the effect. Causes do not have the power to make the effect happen. A survey revealed that people who smoke are more likely to suffer from tooth decay and the news presenter concluded that smoking leads to tooth decay. There may be a correlation between smoking and tooth decay but to conclude that smoking cause tooth decay is wrong. Not all who smoke cigarettes have tooth decay, only the probability amongst the smokers is higher. Vallicela (2004) says we can determine whether a substance is an acid or a base by testing whether it turns red litmus paper blue or blue litmus paper red but it would be absurd to say that a substance’s being an acid or a base consists in its changing the color of litmus paper. Vallicela in support of Hume’s theory of causality finds it absurd that causality depends upon the future course of experience. Every natural event is the effect of a cause. This is the premise on which the arguments for the existence of God is based. If this were true, then every event has a cause. Thus if we trace back, there will be a chain of events and causes and we can never reach the end of the chain. If it does end, we would reach that super power called God. Vallicela says if we try to trace the chain, we will find that there was a time when no biological process or events existed but at a later time they did begin to exist. So, the emergence of the first biological events occurred from non-biological causes. The first time that it emerged, there was a break in regularity. The same cause did not lead to the same effect as authors argue. This is in conformity with Hume’s theory that we should never assume the effect or that cause has the power to produce results. Immanuel Kant claimed that people assume causes while Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations. Patricia Cheng (1997) reconciled both these views (Wikipedia). According to her, people filter the observations of effects through the belief that causes have the power to generate or prevent the effects. They then conclude the cause effect relations but this theory too implies that experience leaves an impression on the mind which then concludes the effect. Mind can play tricks and either lead or mislead. This argument too is not convincing against Humes claims. According to the objections raised against Hume’s philosophy, if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. Smoking does not always cancer, war does not always cause death. So the philosopher’s came up with the theory of probabilistic causation - where the occurrence of A increases the probability of B. This again is based on assumption and experience and not conclusive. Hugh Mellor, another philosopher defines cause as increasing the probability of the effect. Thus, we find that authors are merely trying to create an objection by giving it various definitions with no conclusive evidence. Correlation does not imply causation. smokers may have increased lung cancer rate does not imply smoking increases the probability of lung cancer. The theory of probability too is refuted here. There might be a genetic defect that causes both cancer and the yearning for nicotine. It could also be that yearning for nicotine is the onset of lung cancer, which is not otherwise determinable. Hume further strongly asserts it is impossible to know that certain laws of cause and effects always apply. Just because the sun has risen today does not mean it will rise tomorrow. We do take sunrise for granted but we should maintain an open mind and never presume that we know any laws of causality. He is of the firm conviction that we cannot get an idea of necessary connection by observing it through sensory experiences. The mind merely forms a habit of expecting the same effect as in past from the same cause. It is merely an experience of regularity, which we associate with cause and effect. It is only our conviction that thunder is followed by lightning that we associate the cause and the effect. Thomas Brown agrees with Hume in resolving the causality into invariable succession, but he believes that it has its origin in ‘habit’. According to Hamilton, causality is a belief dependent upon powerlessness of our nature to think otherwise. John Stuart Mill sees causality as uniform antecedence, the growth of human experience, and not to be extended beyond the realm of experience. According to Hegel, Being is Becoming. The notion of causality is causality itself. Schopenhauer goes a step further and argues that this world and its processes are the objectivized form of the Will. Berkeley believes that causal changes in the world are illusory but Hegel asserts that unfolding of thoughts is the cause of phenomenal change. All these theories and concepts either refute each other or borrow from each other. Hume firmly rejects the existing rational concept of cause. He argues that causality is merely a perception. Will can never be considered as cause and effect. Any causal sequence is independent of any past, present or future events. No arguments and objections have been able to stand the evidence suggested by Hume. Hume’s account of causality is not defective as causes are mere impressions on the mind. References: New Advent, Cause, 13 July 2006 Vallicela W F, The Hume-Edwards Objection to the Cosmological Argument and the Regularity Theory Of Causation, 13 July 2006 Wikipedia, Causality, 13 July 2006 Read More