ABSTRACT
Douglas Gasking's version of the Action, Intervention, Manipulation (AIM) theory largely follows R. G. Collingwood, but Gasking discusses two things which are not mentioned by Collingwood. The first is an objection to the AIM approach which concerns causal claims in which the cause cannot be manipulated by humans. This chapter discusses two further objections to AIM theories of causality which are not mentioned by Gasking, though they are listed and discussed by P. Menzies and H. Price. It discusses the explanation of causal asymmetry in a more general setting which includes simultaneous causation. Any AIM theory of causality relates causes to actions, interventions, and manipulations. Thus it would seem on this approach, there can be no causes without human beings to carry out these actions, interventions, and manipulations. The chapter examines that both the action-related and agency theories of causality do indeed explain the asymmetry of causality, but that James Woodward's theory cannot explain the asymmetry.
