ABSTRACT
Chapter 4 defends ICCJ’s first distinctive view: the view that influences on a person’s decision-making invalidate consent only if they induce a certain type of motivation, and regardless of whether they do so directly or through deviant causal chains. The chapter explains that, so understood, ICCJ neither requires that consent counterfactually depend on the influence, as many prominent views do, nor, as other views do, that the influence ‘directly explain’ the consent. The chapter supports these claims by systematically connecting the debate on consent with the more general discussion of causation and counterfactuals in metaphysics. It will label ICCJ’s account in this respect the Bad-Reasons-View.
