Pembroke College, Cambridge, CB21RF, UK.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2021 Apr;86:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.01.003. Epub 2021 Mar 2.
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.
在第二个类比中，康德认为每个事件都有一个原因。这个结论到底意味着什么，仍然存在争议。康德是否只论证了弱因果原则，即每个事件都有某种原因，还是论证了强因果原则，即每个事件都是根据普遍的因果规律产生的？现有的解释都假设，根据康德的观点，这两者之间存在实质性的区别。我认为这种观点是错误的。康德认为，原因的概念包含了规律联系的概念，因此根据普遍规律运作的原因是分析性的。他明确表达了这一承诺，尤其是在他在《基础》第三部分中对绝对命令的推导中。因此，康德从因果规则到普遍规律的转变比之前假设的要简单得多。鉴于他的承诺，要确立强因果原则，所需要的论证并不比确立弱因果原则多。
