ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the bulk of the arguments against causal necessity are either arguments against realism in general or only address a caricature of causal realism—here called relational realism—a view that was constructed by Russell (1912), but which has never been put forward in defence of causal necessity. Hume’s argument against necessary connections is discussed in Chapter 2. Here the focus is on Anscombe’s criticism of a logically/conceptually necessary connection, Russell’s problem of action at a temporal distance, and the problem of interference and prevention. It is shown that the standard view is immune to these arguments, even to Mumford & Anjum’s modified version of the problem of interference and prevention that is meant to apply also to powers-based accounts.
