Talk:Proximate cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Metaphysics

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Concurrent Cause 2 Condoleeza Rice reference removed 3 Merge proposal 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion

[edit] Concurrent Cause

A concurrent cause is listed as a circumstance in which the "but for" test is ineffective. The section provides the following example: "[A] construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian." Is the "but for" test ineffective in this example? But for the missing manhole, the injury would not have occurred. Also, but for the careless driving, the injury would not have occurred. The fact that another condition was also needed does not seem to make the "but for" test ineffective. (Note that this other condition could also be another party's nontortious behaviour or even a natural condition.) I have not modified the article, as I thought some discussion might be warranted first.--Rpclod (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleeza Rice reference removed

I have removed the following reference to Condoleezza Rice from the article, as it seems waaay off topic:

• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice*

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has begun using the phrase/concept of proximate cause to explain the Iraq War instead of immediately going after the perpetrators of the September 11th Attacks:

" The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda ... or we could take a bolder approach."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/16/rice-after-9-11/

This is, in my opinion, a blip that has nothing to do with the law of proximate cause. I'll gladly entertain arguments as to why it should be included.  BD2412 ^talk 15:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be there. 'Nuff said. I think that this tends to apply to lots of other articles too. Simply because a word is used in a given context, doesn't mean it ought to be in an encyclopedia article (eg. indemnity/indemnification)Mmmbeer 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. --Coolcaesar 04:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Reasons for the merge have not been proposed here, and as there has been no response after more than four weeks, I am removing the merge proposal. What is more appropriate here is for Proximate cause to be moved to Proximate cause (law), and Proximate causation to become a disambiguation page with a link to Proximate cause (law) as it currently refers to uses of the notion in both Philosophy and Ethology. Following this I will write a move request for Proximate cause. Tug201 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)