3.人类事务中，自由意志是一张王牌。到目前为止，我们注意到因果关系在物质世界通过强制或必然性而发生，在非物质事件——也就是人类事务通过影响而发生。还有，在人类事务中，结果在某种程度上是可以预测的，但是远不如物质世界。现在我们要考虑下为什么它们的可预测性更低。答案是人们拥有自由意志——这是对甚至是最强大影响进行抵抗，做出应对的能力。自由意志本身就是一个超越了其它原因的因素。这解释了为什么生长在最恶劣环境——比如，在不完整的、家庭暴力的家庭里或者充满犯罪的社区里，到处都是以毒品交易和卖淫为生——的人会抵抗所有这些负面影响而变得正派，努力工作和遵纪守法。（这这解释了为什么有些有些良好的经济和社会环境的人没有成为他们理想中的样子。）
有人肯定地说过，人们很少能选择他们生活地点和环境，但是他们通常可以选择对这些环境的回应，因为他们具备自由意志。在对人类事务中原因和结果的任何调查中，必须考虑自由意志的因素。但是，拥有自由意志并不们保证我们会运用它。事实上，有一个因素让自由意志的运用变得困难，这个因素就是习惯。
习惯促使烟民继续抽烟，说谎者继续说谎，自私的人继续吝啬，还有无数的人不假思索的追求最新的潮流。当前卫的设计师说“应该提高裙边”时，成群的女性这么做。当超大的无腰带牛仔裤流行时，成群结队的年轻人在街上晃荡，裤腰在臀部中间，裤裆碰到膝盖。当偶像级运动员剃光头时，大批粉丝剃光头。抵制习惯的力量一直都是可能的，但绝不容易。
随着时间积累的习惯最难打破。想一想对电视和电影中逐渐增加的暴力和性的接受。在二十世纪50年代，没有这么多暴力和性在屏幕中出现，在屏幕中出现的内容都是温和的。只给观众看一眼鲜血和血迹，短暂瞥过裸露的身体。一年又一年，这些镜头数量越来越多，摄像头离它们越来越近，时间越来越长。随着时间的推移，一个接一个的禁忌被打破。最后，暴力和性结合在一起，并增加了强奸、猥亵儿童甚至食人的主题。最近以来，这个行业采用了新的手段来刺激感官——法医鉴定程序，在程序中详细描述强奸和杀人的过程，在特写镜头中呈现出尸检的每一个血淋淋的细节，同时伴随着频繁的图像回放，用震撼人心的犯罪细节刷新观众的认知。
最初，这些暴力和性的内容引发了抗议。经过一段时间，随着对耸人听闻镜头的熟悉，人们养成了接受它们的习惯，抗议逐步减少了。（随着这个习惯变得强烈，任何反对性和暴力镜头的人被认为是古怪的）。在这个案例中发生的事情，不是人们失去了他们的自由或者抗议的能力，而是习惯剥夺了他们抗议的想法。
4.因果关系往往很复杂。当一颗小石子落入平静的水池中时，它会在每个方向上产生涟漪，这些涟漪甚至会影响到遥远的水域。美国国家航空航天局（NASA）的研究人员在大气中发现了一个类似的过程：空气中被称为气溶胶的微小颗粒可以对远离其源头数千英里的气候产生连锁反应。
人类事务的效应也是复杂的。为了缩减成本，化工厂的所有者在流向河流附近小溪中倾倒化学品，这个行为可能会导致他预料外的结果，包括污染河流，鱼类死亡，甚至使远离他化工厂的人们患上癌症。即使他不是有意为之这些结果也不会不发生。
在感冒早期阶段的女士，并没有意识到自己病了，可能在飞机上拥挤的人群中打喷嚏，传染给数十个同行的旅客。结果，他们可能无法工作；有些人可能要住院治疗；那些免疫系统脆弱的人可能会死亡。在她对自己状况缺乏了解的情况下，没有一个明白道理的人会认为她打喷嚏造成后果所以有罪（道德责任），但是依旧毫无疑问是她导致的结果。
一辆小车晚上行驶在洲际公路上。快速连续的事情发生——一只鹿跳出来，司机猛地踩下刹车，但还是撞上并杀死了鹿，后面紧跟着的车又猛撞上他的车，5辆其他小车同样的，每一个都撞上前面的小车。作为一个链条反应的结果，司机和乘客们受到不同的伤害——系了安全带的受伤轻一些，其他的更严重。甄别和结果相关因素的工作需要对细节仔细关注。最初的原因是那只鹿在不幸的时间穿越马路，但这不是唯一的原因。第一个司机导致了鹿的死亡。其他的每一个司机都造成了他或她前面紧挨着的车和后面紧挨着的车的损坏。没有系安全带的乘客造成他们的伤害比其他系了安全带的司机和乘客们更加严重。
调查原因和结果需要小心，这些案例包含了有价值的教训。但是如果我们通过常用的调查方式——从最后的结果按照时间倒推到最开始的原因因素（也就是”根本“原因）——来研究案例，这个教训会更清楚。
例如，一段时间以来，很明显，居住在欧洲的中东人数量急剧增加，据一些观察家称，不久之后，欧洲可能被称为“欧拉伯”。是什么导致了这个变化？分析人士认为，数十年以来，欧洲的公司在他们政府的支持下，一直邀请外国人来到他们国家工作，他们的工人带着他们的家庭过来，形成他们的飞地。建设他们的清真寺和教堂，并且“培育”他们自己族群的文化。下一个问题是，什么导致了政府同意引入（外国）工人？答案是，欧洲国家的本地人口已经接近或者低于“人口更替水平”，没有足够的本地工人满足工作的要求，为老年人的退休金和健康服务提供资金。
什么导致了人口的下降？在二十世纪六七十年代很容易得到有效的生育控制技术，越来越多的家庭选择使用这些技术。又是什么导致了这么多家庭限制他们小孩的数量？一个原因是，一百年来，人口从农村迁徙到城市，小孩成了经济负担，而不再是资产了。其他的原因是，人们日益强调自我实现，同时认为抚养孩子是自我压抑的倾向。
正如这个简短的原因和结果的分析表明的，在这个案例中，针对复杂问题草率回应——“中东人要占领欧洲”或者“十字军又来了，只是方向相反”——不仅没有帮助，而且不公平。下面的警示可以帮助你在分析时避免过于简单化。
记住，事情很少（如果有的话）“就这么发生”。事情的发生总是某种影响的结果，这个影响可能是主要的或者次要的，直接的或间接的，在空间和时间上接近或者远离的；还是不可抗拒的（强制或必须）或者可改变的（引诱，鼓动或激励）
记住，自由意志在人类事务中是一个有力的原因因素。并且它经常和其他原因纠缠在一起。在欧洲社会改变的案例中，人们从农村向城市迁徙和采用控制生育是个人选择，但是城市里更多的工作机会（一个经济现实）和生育控制技术（科学的发展）不是个人选择。
注意在连锁事件中，一个结果往往变成另一个原因。例如，欧洲人口的减少导致了外国工人的输入，这又导致了本地出生人和外国人之间的比率变化，经过一段时间后，然后再改变这块大陆的主流价值观和态度。
注意这一点，在处理人类事务时，无法预测结果。因此，在确定原因时，你不得不接受可能性而不是确定性（就像你在物质世界中将它们交由科学规律处理）。换句话说，你可能得出结论，某事很可能是原因，或者当可能性非常高时，本质上就是原因。这两个结论中的任何一个比起仅仅可能性更加有力量，但是还是缺乏确定性。这些差别大致相当于法律判断标准的不同：在民事案件中，标准是“证据的优势”或者“清晰有说服力的证据”，但是在刑事案件中，标准要高于“超出合理的怀疑”。
在寻找真相的时候，当你遇到可能的原因和结果关系时，提醒自己这些注意事项。
原文：
- There is a wild card in human affairs—free will.
So far we have noted that causation occurs through force or necessity in material events, but through influence in nonmaterial events—that is, in human affairs. Also, that in human affairs, effects are to some extent predictable but much less so than in material events. Now we need to consider why they are less predictable. The answer is because people possess free will—that is, the capacity to respond in ways that oppose even the strongest influences. Free will is itself a causative factor, and one that can trump all others. This explains why some people who grow up in the worst of circumstances—for example, in dysfunctional, abusive families or in crime-ridden neighborhoods in which the main sources of income are drug dealing and prostitution—resist all the negative influences and become decent, hardworking, and law-abiding. (It can also explain why some people who are more fortunate economically and socially fall short of those ideals.)
It has been rightly said that people can seldom choose the circumstances life places them in, but they can always choose their responses to those circumstances because they possess free will. In any investigation of causes and effects in human affairs, the factor of free will must be considered. However, possessing free will is no guarantee that we will apply it. In fact, one factor makes such application difficult. That factor is habit.
Habit inclines smokers to continue smoking, liars to continue lying, selfish people to go on being selfish, and countless people to unthinkingly embrace the latest fashion. When leading designers say “hemlines should be raised,” hordes of women comply. When oversized beltless denim jeans are in vogue, hordes of young men waddle down the street, the tops of their pants at the middle of their hips and the crotches of their pants touching their knees. When iconic athletes shave their heads, legions of fans shave theirs. Resisting the force of habit is always possible but never easy.
The most difficult habits to break are those that accrue incrementally over time. Consider the acceptance of increasing violence and sex on TV and in films. In the 1950s, not much violence and sex were shown onscreen, and what was shown was tame. Then viewers were given glimpses of blood and gore and brief peeks at naked flesh. Year by year, the number of such scenes increased and the camera drew in a little closer and lingered a little longer over them. Over time, one thematic taboo after another was broken. Eventually violence and sexuality were joined, and themes of rape, child molestation, and even cannibalism were introduced. More recently, the industry crafted a new vehicle for assaulting the senses—the forensics program, which depicts rape-murders as they happen, then presents every gory detail of the autopsies in extreme close-up, accompanied by frequent, graphic flashbacks to refresh in viewers’ minds the shocking details of the crimes.
At first the violent and sexual content provoked protests. In time, however, as sensational images became familiar, people formed the habit of accepting them, and the protests diminished. (In time the habit grew so strong that anyone who objected to graphic sex and violence was considered odd.) What happened in this case was not that people lost their freedom or ability to protest, but instead that habit took away their inclination to protest.
- Causation is often complex. When a small pebble is dropped into a serene pool of water, it causes ripples in every direction, and those ripples can affect even distant waters. NASA researchers have found a similar process at work in the atmosphere: tiny particles in the air called aerosols can have a rippling effect on the climate thousands of miles away from their source region.
Effects in human affairs can also be complex. In an effort to cut costs, the owner of a chemical plant may dispose of chemicals in a nearby stream that flows into a river. This action may result in effects he did not intend, including the pollution of the river, the killing of fish, and even the contracting of cancer by people living far from his plant. Those effects will be no less real because he did not intend them.
Awoman in the early stages of influenza, unaware that she is ill, may sneeze while on a crowded airplane and infect dozens of her fellow passengers. As a result, they may lose time at work; some may have to be hospitalized; those with compromised immune systems could conceivably die. Given her lack of knowledge of her condition, no reasonable person would consider her culpable (morally responsible) for the effects of her sneeze, but there would still be no doubt that she caused them.
A car is driving on the interstate at night. In rapid succession, a deer jumps out and, the driver slams on his brakes but still hits and kills the deer, the car traveling closely behind slams into his car, and five other cars do likewise, each crashing into the car in front. As a result of this chain reaction, the drivers and passengers suffer a variety of injuries— minor in the case of those wearing seat belts, major in others. The task of identifying the causative factors requires careful attention to the details. The initial cause was the deer’s crossing the road at an unfortunate time, but that is not the only cause. The first driver caused the deer’s demise. Each of the other drivers caused the damage to the front end of his or her car and back end of the car in front.* And the passengers who did not fasten their seat belts caused their injuries to be more severe than those of other drivers and passengers.
These examples contain a valuable lesson about the need for care in investigating causes and effects. But this lesson will be even clearer if we examine a case in the way investigation usually proceeds—backward in time from the latest effect to the earliest causative factor; that is, to the “root” cause.
For example, it has been clear for some time that the number of people of Middle Eastern origin living in Europe has increased so dramatically that before long, according to some observers, Europe might well be called “Eurabia.” What caused this change? Analysts found that for decades European companies, with their governments’ blessing, have been inviting foreigners to work in their countries, and these workers brought their families, formed their own enclaves, built their own mosques and churches, and “planted” their own ethnic cultures. The next question is what caused the governments to approve this influx of workers? The answer is that the native population of European countries had declined to a point near or below “replacement level” and there were too few native-born workers to fill the available jobs and thus fund older people’s pensions and health care services.
What caused the population decline? The availability of effective birth control techniques in the 1960s and 1970s and the choice of more and more families to employ those techniques. What caused so many families to limit the number of their children? One factor was the century-long population movement from rural areas to cities, where children are an economic burden rather than an asset. Others were the growing emphasis on self-fulfillment and the corresponding tendency to regard child rearing as self-stifling.
As even this brief analysis of causes and effects suggests, facile responses to complex issues—in this case, “Middle Easterners are trying to take over Europe” or “The Crusades are here again, in reverse”—are not only unhelpful but unfair. The following cautions will help you avoid oversimplification in your analyses:
Remember that events seldom, if ever, “just happen.” They occur as the result of specific influences, and these influences may be major or minor, direct or indirect, proximate or remote in time or space; also irresistible (forced or necessary) or resistible (invited, encouraged, or inspired).
Remember that free will is a powerful causative factor in human affairs, and it is often intertwined with other causes. In the case of the changes in European society, the movement of people from farm to city and the use of birth control were individual choices, but the greater availability of jobs in the cities (an economic reality) and birth control technology (a scientific development) were not.
Be aware that in a chain of events, an effect often becomes a cause. For example, the decline in population in Europe caused the importation of foreign workers, which in turn caused a change in the ratio of native-born to foreign citizens, which may in time alter the continent’s dominant values and attitudes.
Be aware that, in dealing with human affairs, outcomes can be unpredictable. Therefore, in determining causes, you may have to settle for probability rather than certainty (as you would in matters that lend themselves to scientific measurement). In other words, you might conclude that something is more likely than not or, when the probability is very high, substantially more likely to be the cause. Either of these conclusions has significantly more force than mere possibility, but it falls short of certainty. The difference is roughly analogous to the difference in legal standards of judgment: in civil cases, the standard is “a preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence,” whereas in criminal cases it is the more demanding standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In searching for truth, when you encounter possible cause-and-effect relationships, keep these cautions in mind.
( *At first consideration, it might seem that the front driver in each case caused the accident behind him/her. However, the law holds each driver responsible for maintaining sufficient distance to stop and avoid a crash.)
网友评论