ABSTRACT
Idealist analyses of causal priority in terms of causal activity or agency are embedded in a necessitarian outlook. In denying the importance of laws to causation, it does not bar any particular conception of laws, including a regularity conception. Now, if the regularity theory is construed narrowly as just a view about laws, an advocate can ignore the idealist position regarding causal activity and address just the view that laws are necessary truths. A response for dealing with enumerative generalizations, coherent with the regularity approach, is based upon their systemic isolability. Finding the notion of causal activity too obscure and probably ill equipped, due to its source in a narrow range of cases involving human intervention, to provide a general account of causal transactions, the author of this chapter concludes that the regularity theory need not be perturbed by unclarities which persist in the area of causal priority.
