3.人類事務(wù)中，自由意志是一張王牌。到目前為止，我們注意到因果關(guān)系在物質(zhì)世界通過強(qiáng)制或必然性而發(fā)生，在非物質(zhì)事件——也就是人類事務(wù)通過影響而發(fā)生。還有，在人類事務(wù)中，結(jié)果在某種程度上是可以預(yù)測(cè)的，但是遠(yuǎn)不如物質(zhì)世界?，F(xiàn)在我們要考慮下為什么它們的可預(yù)測(cè)性更低。答案是人們擁有自由意志——這是對(duì)甚至是最強(qiáng)大影響進(jìn)行抵抗，做出應(yīng)對(duì)的能力。自由意志本身就是一個(gè)超越了其它原因的因素。這解釋了為什么生長(zhǎng)在最惡劣環(huán)境——比如，在不完整的、家庭暴力的家庭里或者充滿犯罪的社區(qū)里，到處都是以毒品交易和賣淫為生——的人會(huì)抵抗所有這些負(fù)面影響而變得正派，努力工作和遵紀(jì)守法。（這這解釋了為什么有些有些良好的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)環(huán)境的人沒有成為他們理想中的樣子。）
有人肯定地說過，人們很少能選擇他們生活地點(diǎn)和環(huán)境，但是他們通?？梢赃x擇對(duì)這些環(huán)境的回應(yīng)，因?yàn)樗麄兙邆渥杂梢庵?。在?duì)人類事務(wù)中原因和結(jié)果的任何調(diào)查中，必須考慮自由意志的因素。但是，擁有自由意志并不們保證我們會(huì)運(yùn)用它。事實(shí)上，有一個(gè)因素讓自由意志的運(yùn)用變得困難，這個(gè)因素就是習(xí)慣。
習(xí)慣促使煙民繼續(xù)抽煙，說謊者繼續(xù)說謊，自私的人繼續(xù)吝嗇，還有無數(shù)的人不假思索的追求最新的潮流。當(dāng)前衛(wèi)的設(shè)計(jì)師說“應(yīng)該提高裙邊”時(shí)，成群的女性這么做。當(dāng)超大的無腰帶牛仔褲流行時(shí)，成群結(jié)隊(duì)的年輕人在街上晃蕩，褲腰在臀部中間，褲襠碰到膝蓋。當(dāng)偶像級(jí)運(yùn)動(dòng)員剃光頭時(shí)，大批粉絲剃光頭。抵制習(xí)慣的力量一直都是可能的，但絕不容易。
隨著時(shí)間積累的習(xí)慣最難打破。想一想對(duì)電視和電影中逐漸增加的暴力和性的接受。在二十世紀(jì)50年代，沒有這么多暴力和性在屏幕中出現(xiàn)，在屏幕中出現(xiàn)的內(nèi)容都是溫和的。只給觀眾看一眼鮮血和血跡，短暫瞥過裸露的身體。一年又一年，這些鏡頭數(shù)量越來越多，攝像頭離它們?cè)絹碓浇?，時(shí)間越來越長(zhǎng)。隨著時(shí)間的推移，一個(gè)接一個(gè)的禁忌被打破。最后，暴力和性結(jié)合在一起，并增加了強(qiáng)奸、猥褻兒童甚至食人的主題。最近以來，這個(gè)行業(yè)采用了新的手段來刺激感官——法醫(yī)鑒定程序，在程序中詳細(xì)描述強(qiáng)奸和殺人的過程，在特寫鏡頭中呈現(xiàn)出尸檢的每一個(gè)血淋淋的細(xì)節(jié)，同時(shí)伴隨著頻繁的圖像回放，用震撼人心的犯罪細(xì)節(jié)刷新觀眾的認(rèn)知。
最初，這些暴力和性的內(nèi)容引發(fā)了抗議。經(jīng)過一段時(shí)間，隨著對(duì)聳人聽聞鏡頭的熟悉，人們養(yǎng)成了接受它們的習(xí)慣，抗議逐步減少了。（隨著這個(gè)習(xí)慣變得強(qiáng)烈，任何反對(duì)性和暴力鏡頭的人被認(rèn)為是古怪的）。在這個(gè)案例中發(fā)生的事情，不是人們失去了他們的自由或者抗議的能力，而是習(xí)慣剝奪了他們抗議的想法。
4.因果關(guān)系往往很復(fù)雜。當(dāng)一顆小石子落入平靜的水池中時(shí)，它會(huì)在每個(gè)方向上產(chǎn)生漣漪，這些漣漪甚至?xí)绊懙竭b遠(yuǎn)的水域。美國(guó)國(guó)家航空航天局（NASA）的研究人員在大氣中發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)類似的過程：空氣中被稱為氣溶膠的微小顆?？梢詫?duì)遠(yuǎn)離其源頭數(shù)千英里的氣候產(chǎn)生連鎖反應(yīng)。
人類事務(wù)的效應(yīng)也是復(fù)雜的。為了縮減成本，化工廠的所有者在流向河流附近小溪中傾倒化學(xué)品，這個(gè)行為可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致他預(yù)料外的結(jié)果，包括污染河流，魚類死亡，甚至使遠(yuǎn)離他化工廠的人們患上癌癥。即使他不是有意為之這些結(jié)果也不會(huì)不發(fā)生。
在感冒早期階段的女士，并沒有意識(shí)到自己病了，可能在飛機(jī)上擁擠的人群中打噴嚏，傳染給數(shù)十個(gè)同行的旅客。結(jié)果，他們可能無法工作；有些人可能要住院治療；那些免疫系統(tǒng)脆弱的人可能會(huì)死亡。在她對(duì)自己狀況缺乏了解的情況下，沒有一個(gè)明白道理的人會(huì)認(rèn)為她打噴嚏造成后果所以有罪（道德責(zé)任），但是依舊毫無疑問是她導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果。
一輛小車晚上行駛在洲際公路上?？焖龠B續(xù)的事情發(fā)生——一只鹿跳出來，司機(jī)猛地踩下剎車，但還是撞上并殺死了鹿，后面緊跟著的車又猛撞上他的車，5輛其他小車同樣的，每一個(gè)都撞上前面的小車。作為一個(gè)鏈條反應(yīng)的結(jié)果，司機(jī)和乘客們受到不同的傷害——系了安全帶的受傷輕一些，其他的更嚴(yán)重。甄別和結(jié)果相關(guān)因素的工作需要對(duì)細(xì)節(jié)仔細(xì)關(guān)注。最初的原因是那只鹿在不幸的時(shí)間穿越馬路，但這不是唯一的原因。第一個(gè)司機(jī)導(dǎo)致了鹿的死亡。其他的每一個(gè)司機(jī)都造成了他或她前面緊挨著的車和后面緊挨著的車的損壞。沒有系安全帶的乘客造成他們的傷害比其他系了安全帶的司機(jī)和乘客們更加嚴(yán)重。
調(diào)查原因和結(jié)果需要小心，這些案例包含了有價(jià)值的教訓(xùn)。但是如果我們通過常用的調(diào)查方式——從最后的結(jié)果按照時(shí)間倒推到最開始的原因因素（也就是”根本“原因）——來研究案例，這個(gè)教訓(xùn)會(huì)更清楚。
例如，一段時(shí)間以來，很明顯，居住在歐洲的中東人數(shù)量急劇增加，據(jù)一些觀察家稱，不久之后，歐洲可能被稱為“歐拉伯”。是什么導(dǎo)致了這個(gè)變化？分析人士認(rèn)為，數(shù)十年以來，歐洲的公司在他們政府的支持下，一直邀請(qǐng)外國(guó)人來到他們國(guó)家工作，他們的工人帶著他們的家庭過來，形成他們的飛地。建設(shè)他們的清真寺和教堂，并且“培育”他們自己族群的文化。下一個(gè)問題是，什么導(dǎo)致了政府同意引入（外國(guó)）工人？答案是，歐洲國(guó)家的本地人口已經(jīng)接近或者低于“人口更替水平”，沒有足夠的本地工人滿足工作的要求，為老年人的退休金和健康服務(wù)提供資金。
什么導(dǎo)致了人口的下降？在二十世紀(jì)六七十年代很容易得到有效的生育控制技術(shù)，越來越多的家庭選擇使用這些技術(shù)。又是什么導(dǎo)致了這么多家庭限制他們小孩的數(shù)量？一個(gè)原因是，一百年來，人口從農(nóng)村遷徙到城市，小孩成了經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)，而不再是資產(chǎn)了。其他的原因是，人們?nèi)找鎻?qiáng)調(diào)自我實(shí)現(xiàn)，同時(shí)認(rèn)為撫養(yǎng)孩子是自我壓抑的傾向。
正如這個(gè)簡(jiǎn)短的原因和結(jié)果的分析表明的，在這個(gè)案例中，針對(duì)復(fù)雜問題草率回應(yīng)——“中東人要占領(lǐng)歐洲”或者“十字軍又來了，只是方向相反”——不僅沒有幫助，而且不公平。下面的警示可以幫助你在分析時(shí)避免過于簡(jiǎn)單化。
記住，事情很少（如果有的話）“就這么發(fā)生”。事情的發(fā)生總是某種影響的結(jié)果，這個(gè)影響可能是主要的或者次要的，直接的或間接的，在空間和時(shí)間上接近或者遠(yuǎn)離的；還是不可抗拒的（強(qiáng)制或必須）或者可改變的（引誘，鼓動(dòng)或激勵(lì)）
記住，自由意志在人類事務(wù)中是一個(gè)有力的原因因素。并且它經(jīng)常和其他原因糾纏在一起。在歐洲社會(huì)改變的案例中，人們從農(nóng)村向城市遷徙和采用控制生育是個(gè)人選擇，但是城市里更多的工作機(jī)會(huì)（一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實(shí)）和生育控制技術(shù)（科學(xué)的發(fā)展）不是個(gè)人選擇。
注意在連鎖事件中，一個(gè)結(jié)果往往變成另一個(gè)原因。例如，歐洲人口的減少導(dǎo)致了外國(guó)工人的輸入，這又導(dǎo)致了本地出生人和外國(guó)人之間的比率變化，經(jīng)過一段時(shí)間后，然后再改變這塊大陸的主流價(jià)值觀和態(tài)度。
注意這一點(diǎn)，在處理人類事務(wù)時(shí)，無法預(yù)測(cè)結(jié)果。因此，在確定原因時(shí)，你不得不接受可能性而不是確定性（就像你在物質(zhì)世界中將它們交由科學(xué)規(guī)律處理）。換句話說，你可能得出結(jié)論，某事很可能是原因，或者當(dāng)可能性非常高時(shí)，本質(zhì)上就是原因。這兩個(gè)結(jié)論中的任何一個(gè)比起僅僅可能性更加有力量，但是還是缺乏確定性。這些差別大致相當(dāng)于法律判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不同：在民事案件中，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是“證據(jù)的優(yōu)勢(shì)”或者“清晰有說服力的證據(jù)”，但是在刑事案件中，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要高于“超出合理的懷疑”。
在尋找真相的時(shí)候，當(dāng)你遇到可能的原因和結(jié)果關(guān)系時(shí)，提醒自己這些注意事項(xiàng)。
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.)
