Territorial Exclusion

Supporters of open borders sometimes argue that the state has no pro tanto right to restrict immigration, because such a right would also entail a right to exclude existing citizens for whatever reasons justify excluding immigrants. These arguments can be defeated by suggesting that people have a right to stay put. I present a new form of the exclusion argument against closed borders which escapes this “right to stay put” reply. I do this by describing a kind of exclusion that has not been discussed in depth, which I call “territorial exclusion.” Territorial exclusion is the process according to which the group that wishes to exclude current citizens secedes from the territory in which those citizens reside. I argue that the wrongness of territorial exclusion explains why there is no pro tanto right for a state to exclude immigrants, because otherwise there would be a pro tanto right for the state to kick people out by seceding from the territory they inhabit. Because kicking people out like this is typically wrong, borders cannot be closed.

Three Versions of Physical Closure

The Exclusion Argument has been regarded as the most powerful challenge to non-reductive physicalism. This argument presupposes a crucial thesis, Causal Closure of the Physical, which asserts that every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause. Although this thesis is widely accepted in contemporary philosophy of mind, philosophers say surprisingly little about what notion of physical entities should be adopted in the context. In this article, the author distinguishes between three versions of Closure that appeal to a narrow, a moderate, and a wide notion of the physical, respectively. The author then argues that none of the three versions can challenge non-reductive physicalism.

How Properties Emerge

A framework for representing a specific kind of emergent property instance is given in terms of the fusion of property instances. A solution to a generalized version of the exclusion argument is then provided to show that this is not restricted to physical and mental events, and it is shown that upward and downward causation is unproblematical for that kind of emergence. One real example of this kind of emergence is briefly described and the suggestion made that emergence may be more common than current opinions allow. Throughout, reasons to be skeptical of an ontology containing sharply divided levels are given.

Intervening in the Exclusion Argument

This chapter discusses Peter Menzies’ work on mental causation and the causal exclusion argument. It endorses Menzies’ claim that an interventionist account of causation can cast new light on this complex of issues, but diverges from Menzies’ position at several points, in particular in connection with the role of proportionality considerations in the characterization of causation. This chapter attempts to clarify Woodward’s views about mental causation and the exclusion argument, to respond to some recent criticisms of those views, and to contrast Woodward’s views with the somewhat different approach favored by Menzies. The differences between Woodward’s and Menzies’ views are traced in part to different assumptions about the semantics of counterfactuals.

Difference-making, Closure, and Exclusion

This chapter discusses Peter Menzies’ work on mental causation and the causal exclusion argument. The author shares with Menzies the conviction that an interventionist account of causation can cast new light on this complex of issues, but his view diverges from Menzies at several points, including the role of proportionality considerations in the characterization of causation. This chapter seeks to clarify the role that proportionality considerations should play in the interventionist account of causation. The author develops a number of arguments for the claim that proportionality considerations belong not in the theory of causation but rather in the theory of explanatory value. These arguments help to situate the approach to mental causation favoured by Menzies in relation to the interventionist account of causation.

My Brain Made Me Do It

This chapter offers a critical assessment of the ‘exclusion argument’ against free will, which may be summarized by the slogan: ‘My brain made me do it, therefore I couldn’t have been free.’ While the exclusion argument has received much attention in debates about mental causation (‘could my mental states ever cause my actions?’), it is seldom discussed in relation to free will. However, the argument informally underlies many neuroscientific discussions of free will, especially the claim that advances in neuroscience seriously challenge our belief in free will. The chapter introduces two distinct versions of the argument, discusses several unsuccessful responses to it, and then presents the authors’ preferred response. This involves showing that a key premise—the ‘exclusion principle’—is false under what the authors take to be the most natural account of causation in the context of agency: the difference-making account. The chapter finally revisits the debate about neuroscience and free will.

Making a Difference

Making a Difference presents fifteen original essays on causation and counterfactuals by philosophers and political theorists. Collectively, they represent the state of the art on these topics. The essays in this volume are inspired by the work of the late Australian philosopher Peter Menzies (1953–2015), who himself made a very great difference to our contemporary understanding of these matters. Topics covered include: the semantics of counterfactuals, agency theories of causation, the context-sensitivity of causal claims, structural equation models, mechanisms, mental causation, the causal exclusion argument, and free will. Contributors: Helen Beebee, Thomas Blanchard, David Braddon-Mitchell, Rachael Briggs, Nancy Cartwright, Christopher Hitchcock, Christian List, Cei Maslen, Peter Menzies, Daniel Nolan, Philip Pettit, Huw Price, Jonathan Schaffer, Brad Weslake, James Woodward.