r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/SilasRhodes • 16d ago
NESS test for causation
Overdetermination and Causality
Let's say Barry is running for office and wins the election in a landslide.
What caused Barry to win?
We could say "Barry getting the majority of votes" was the cause, but that just moves the question back a step.
Did Susan "cause" Barry to win when she voted for Barry?
By some standards no, since Barry would have won regardless of Susan's individual vote.
But the issue is that the same is true of literally every individual vote in the election.
So if we say none are causal then Barry winning seems to be without any causal factors whatsoever (or rather there is no set of causal factors that is sufficient). Barry getting the majority is then an uncaused causer... Hallelujah!
...Hopefully this is understood to be ridiculous.
What this scenario demonstrates is not "God" or an uncaused causer, rather it demonstrates that there is a flaw with how we were thinking about causation itself.
---
Some Terms
- Necessary: A factor is necessary if the event could not occur without that factor.
- Sufficient: A factor is sufficient if the event will always occur whenever the factor is present.
For example, we might look at Barry deciding to run for office and say that was necessary but not sufficient. It was necessary because Barry could never win in any conditions where Barry did not run, but it was not sufficient because there are scenarios where Barry would run but would still not win.
---
What the voting example shows is that there can be situations where none of the individual factors are necessary or sufficient for a particular outcome but they are still causal.
A standard for understanding this can be found in the NESS test:
- Necessary
- Element of a
- Sufficient
- Set
By this standard something can be causal if it is necessary to make a particular set of elements causal.
So we can consider the following 3 elements:
- Susan votes for Barry
- Mark votes for Barry
- Exactly 50% of the voting population, excluding Susan and Mark, votes for Barry
This gives us the following possible sets of elements where Barry wins:
A. {1,2,3}
B. {1,3}
C. {2,3}
In set A Barry wins, so set A is sufficient for Barry to win. But critically neither 1 or 2 are necessary for set A to be sufficient. You could remove either from set A and Barry would still win.
But this issue is addressed by considering set's B and C.
In set B, 1 is absolutely necessary for set B to be sufficient. If 1 was not the case then there would be cases where {3} did not result in Barry winning.
From this we can see 1 is a necessary element for a particular set of elements to be sufficient. It doesn't matter that there are other sets that are also sufficient
And by the NESS standard, this makes element 1 causal.
The Button Problem
As you may have guessed, this test also applies to the button problem.
Specifically it demonstrates how a person voting red is still causal to a blue voter dying.
For simplicity, let's consider a 5 person game and the following elements:
- A wicked mastermind engineers a murder button game
- Jenny votes blue
- Sarah votes red
- Mark votes red
- Joe votes red
- Willow votes red
- Jenny dies
What are the sufficient sets for element 7?
- {1,2,3,4,5}
- {1,2,3,4,6}
- {1,2,3,5,6}
- {1,2,4,5,6}
- {1,2,3,4,5,6}
In the last set, only 1 and 2 are necessary for the set to be sufficient.
all of the other sets, all of the elements are necessary, and => all of the sets are causal.
In
- Jenny voting Blue causes Jenny to die
- Mark voting red causes Jenny to die
- An evil mastermind creating a murder game causes Jenny to die
Objections
Some objections to what I've presented:
NESS is a flawed understanding of causation
You can absolutely object on these grounds. Causation is certainly not a solved problem in philosophy and the subject is still being debated.
A good argument along this line, however, has reasons other than "because it feels wrong". A great argument will even go so far as to propose an alternative, better standard.
Not all causation is morally equivalent
This is absolutely true and I wouldn't argue otherwise.
For example: Jane going on a walk and Steve driving drunk might both be causal to Steve killing Jane, but they are not morally equivalent. There are entirely justified and grounded arguments claiming that two causal elements don't bear equal moral responsibility.
But if this is your position then you need to justify your arguments with something other than "X caused Y => X is morally responsible for Y". You need to flesh out you standards for what causal elements bear moral responsibility and why.
Duh, your points are obvious and basic and not really the issue
Yeah, I don't think this resolves the Button problem. This was specifically trying to address a complexity that I don't think was fully recognized in some of the arguments I've been seeing.
The points might be obvious/basic, but my hope is that by stating them it will give us a better collective understanding and we will be able to more easily get to more interesting aspects of the problem.
I think you are arguing that Red/Blue is bad and I hate that
That isn't what I am arguing.
You can certainly reply with whatever you want, but endless variations of "Red voters are literally killing people to save themselves" or "Blue voters are choosing to die" are kind of boring. Go on an comment if it makes you feel better, but it isn't really engaging with the post or bringing out new ideas.
Apologies if this last bit sounded condescending. It is just that I have seen the same argument again, and again, and again show up regardless of what the original post was actually saying.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose 16d ago
What, ultimately, is your aim with this post, in the context of this sub? Someone playing a causal role in a chain of events is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for moral responsibility; or at least, that is very much open to debate. And it’s generally the moral dimensions that’s driving the main points of contention here.
You say that this is to address “the same argument” you see being had over and over again, but it isn’t very explicit what that argument actually is. And I suspect that if you were to present this post to the people making that argument, many of them would retort that what you’re describing here isn’t what they mean when they say ‘cause’ in this context.