The Classical Theory of Causal Explanation under the Razor of John Searle

Regarding the analysis of voluntary action, there are two general attitudes in Western philosophy: causal explanation and non-causal rational explanation. The first view has been the classic and common theory in the history of Western philosophy and thought, but the second has been formed in the contemporary century. According to the first view, the inner elements of the agent, i.e., desire, intention and belief, have a causal relationship with his action, and the explanation of the action based on them is an example of causal explanation. John Searle, a famous contemporary philosopher who defends the second view, lists six assumptions for the first theory and criticizes them. Based on the words of Searle and other proponents of the first view, this article explains, rationally analyzes and evaluates Searle's six assumptions and his criticisms.The mentioned assumptions are: the causality of beliefs and desires for rational actions, rationality as following certain principles and rules, rationality as a separate cognitive faculty, weakness of will caused by disturbance in the psychological antecedents of the action, denial of desire-independent reasons for action and realization of rationality in the assumption of consistent collection of previous desires. Searle believes that these assumptions are incomplete. Some of Searle's criticisms and his positive views are debatable, including that the agent himself is the cause of action, not his beliefs and desires, and that Searle's idea of the desire-independent reason is incomplete and there is a desire in this kind of reason. The rationality includes primary goals and beliefs.