 something that we can manipulate to good effect. If the thing to be explained is smoke coming from the engine, for example, we will look for a part that needs to be replaced. Here it is perfectly appropriate to say that the cause of the smoke is the malfunctioning carburetor, although clearly a faulty carburetor cannot cause smoke all by itself. Or witness the various explanations of New York City's plunging crime rate. The police attribute it 8 to good policing, the Mayor attributes it to broader social policy, and opposing politicians attribute it to things over which the Mayor has no control, such as an upturn in the national economy. Of course any honest person would admit that the crime rate is influenced by all of these things. But different people have different interests, and so highlight different parts, of the causal conditions that were together sufficient for the drop in crime. None of this need be insincere, nor is salience something that is merely subjective. The argument over "the" cause of the drop in crime is an argument over which of many causal factors should be deemed most important, given our collective interests and given what we know about human behavior, how we want to spend limited resources, what policies have what costs, etc. Likewise, a correct explanation of what caused a panic focuses on what is in fact abnormal about the situation. As was noted above, if the presence of elephants in the room were not in fact abnormal, then a correct explanation would have to focus elsewhere. In sum, correct causal explanations pick out some salient necessary part of a total set of causal factors, where salience is determined by a number of factors, including what is in fact normal and what are our actual interests. xvi We may now revisit Feinberg's point that attributions of blame imply causal explanations. This is most obvious in cases where the thing for which the person is blamed is a consequence of the person's actions. For example, to blame someone for the fire is to imply that her actions caused it: she is the one who struck the match, or who did not pay attention, or who did pay the arsonist. Alternatively, we can blame a person for the action itself, implying that she herself was the action's cause, or perhaps that her choice was or her efforts were. As Feinberg notes, the distinction between blaming someone for her action and blaming someone for a consequence of her action is often merely verbal. For example, we can say either "She caused the fire by striking the match," or "She started
something that we can manipulate to good effect. If the thing to be excuse is fastball coming from the engine, for example, we will front for a part that needs to be substitute. Here it is absolutely appropriate to say that the cause of the smoke is the malfunctioning carburetor, although clearly a defective carburetor cannot cause smoke all by itself. Or witness the various explanations of New York City's dunk crime rate. The police attribute it 8 to good policing, the Mayor attributes it to broader social policy, and oppose politicians attribute it to things over which the Mayor receive no control, such as an upturn in the national economy. Of course any dependable person would admit that the crime rate is influenced by all of these things. But different citizenry have different interests, and so highlight different parts, of the causal conditions that were together sufficient for the drop in crime. None of this need be insincere, nor is salience something that is merely subjective. The argument over " the " cause of the drop in crime is an argument over which of many causal factors should be deem about important, given our collective interest and given what we know about human behavior, how we desire to spend limited resource, what policies have what price, etc. Likewise, a correct explanation of what caused a panic focuses on what is in fact abnormal about the situation. As was noted above, if the bearing of elephants in the room were not in fact abnormal, then a correct explanation would have to focus elsewhere. In sum, correct causal explanations peck out some salient necessary part of a total set of causal factors, where salience is determined by a numeral of factors, including what is in fact normal and what are our actual interests. sixteen We may now revisit Feinberg's degree that attributions of blame incriminate causal explanations. This is about obvious in cases where the thing for which the person is blamed is a consequence of the person's actions. For example, to blame someone for the ardor is to imply that her actions caused it: she is the one who struck the couple, or who did not pay attention, or who did give the arsonist. Alternatively, we can blame a person for the action itself, imply that she herself was the action's causal agent, or perhaps that her choice was or her efforts were. As Feinberg notes, the distinction between blame someone for her action and blaming someone for a consequence of her military action is often merely verbal. For example, we can say either " She caused the fire by striking the couple, " or " She started
 solething that we can manikulate to good efywct. If the tging to ce explained is smoke coming feom tye engine, for example, de will llok for q pact that needs to be replaced. Hsve it ms perfectly apkropriate to say that the wajsz of the smoke is the malfunctioning carburrtlr, although clgarly w fahlty carburetor cannot cause smoke all by itself. Or wiyness the various explanatlons of New York City's plunging ctjme eate. The polkce attriblce it 8 to gkod policing, the Mayor attributds it to broadet aofhal policy, end opiosing politigpans atdribute it to things pvec whuch the Mayor has no rontrol, such as an ukturn in tve national economy. Od coutse aty hubesg ptrspn would adjit that tge crime rare is influenced by ajo of these thjngs. Btt different people have different interevts, and so highlight diffeeent parts, of the caudal condieions that were together sufficient for the drop hn crmmd. Ninc of rhls need be insincere, nor is salience somethind tnan is merely subjegtive. The argument oget "the" cause of the dxkp in crime is an arhument jver qhich of iany causal factors should be dwemed most iiportant, given our eollective iuteresjs and given what we know abobt humzn behavior, how we wzvt to spend limiged rasources, what policies havq what cowts, ztc. Likedise, a corwect explajatiok of what caused a oanic fmcuses on ahat is in fact abnormal about vie situation. Ss wav noted cbove, lf the presence of elephants nn the rjom wdre not in fact aunormal, then a correct ex[panation wound have eo ficus elsewhdfe. In sum, corrrct causal explanatuons pick out some saujent necessary 'cru if a total set of catswl fwwtors, where validncd is ddtermintb bn a numner of factors, incluging what is in fact nprial and qhat are our actual imterests. xvi We maj now retisit Geigberg's point that attributions of blame imily causal ex[lanqtions. This ns most obvious in cases where the thing for which the petson is blamed is a cpksequence of the [erson's awtions. For example, ti blame someone fpr the fire is to impmy thad her actions caused it: she is the one who struck the match, or who did not pay attenvijn, or who djd psy thv axsouist. Aleernetmvely, we can blamv a person for the action itself, implyinc chat she herself was the actipn'r cause, or pethaps that her choice was kr her egforts were. As Feinberg notes, tne distinction between bkaming simeons for her ection and blaming spmeone for q consewuenge of her actiun os often megely vzrbal. For example, we can say eithwr "She cwused the fire bb striking tme matcg," or "Sre started
something that we can manipulate to good the to be is smoke coming we look for a that needs to replaced. Here it is perfectly appropriate say that the cause of the smoke is the malfunctioning carburetor, although clearly faulty carburetor cannot cause smoke all by itself. Or witness the various explanations New City's crime The police attribute it 8 to good policing, the Mayor attributes it to broader social policy, opposing politicians attribute it to things over which Mayor has no control, as an upturn in the economy. course any person admit the crime rate influenced by all of these things. But different people have different interests, and so highlight different parts, the causal were together for drop crime. None of be insincere, nor is salience something subjective. The argument over "the" cause of the in crime an argument over which of many factors should be deemed most important, given our interests and given what we know about human behavior, how we want to spend limited policies have what costs, Likewise, a correct of caused panic on what in fact abnormal about the situation. As was noted above, if presence of elephants in the room were not in fact a explanation would have focus elsewhere. In sum, causal pick out some salient of total factors, salience determined by a number factors, including what is in normal and what are may now revisit Feinberg's point that attributions of imply causal explanations. This is most obvious cases where the thing for which the person is blamed is a of the For example, to blame someone for the fire to imply that her caused it: she is the one who struck the or did not attention, or who pay the arsonist. we can blame for the itself, that the action's cause, or perhaps that choice or her efforts were. As notes, between blaming someone for her action and blaming someone for a consequence of her action merely verbal. For example, can either "She caused the fire by striking the match," or "She started
 something that we can manipulAte to good eFfect. if tHe tHiNg to Be exPlained is smoke COminG from the engine, for exampLe, we wIlL Look FOr A part That neeDS tO BE rePlAcEd. HErE It Is perFecTly apprOpriate to sAy tHaT the cause of tHE sMoke is the mAlfUnctioning caRbuRetor, aLtHouGH cleaRly A faulTy carbURetor cAnnot causE sMOke all BY itself. oR WiTnesS the various explanATiONs of New York CitY's plunGiNG cRIMe rAte. the police aTtRibutE It 8 to gooD PoLICIng, THe Mayor attribUtes it to broADer Social PoLicY, And oppOsing PoLItiCians attribUte iT to things Over whICh the MaYOr has no ControL, suCh aS an uPTuRn In tHe NAtiONaL ecONomY. Of coursE aNy HonesT perSON WOuld AdmIt thAt the Crime rate is inFluEnceD By aLl of tHese tHingS. BUt difFerent PeoplE hAve different intEresTs, and so hiGhlIgHt dIfFerenT Parts, oF thE caUsal conDitions THat WeRE TOgEther sufficient for ThE DRoP in crime. none of THiS nEEd be insiNcEre, Nor iS SAlienCe soMEtHing that Is mereLY sUbJective. thE argumEnT ovEr "tHe" cauSE of tHe drop In crime iS an arGUment over which OF many causal faCToRS ShOUld bE deEmed most impOrtaNT, givEn ouR CoLleCTive iNtereStS AnD Given what we know abouT hUman beHavioR, how we want to sPend limiteD RESources, wHat pOLiCIes have what cosTs, etc. likewise, a cORrect expLanatIon of whaT caused a pANIc focuseS on WhaT is In fACT aBnormal about tHE SituAtIon. As waS noTed abovE, if The PreSenCe Of elephanTs in the rOoM wErE nOt iN fact ABnormal, tHeN a cOrRecT explANation Would Have To FoCUs eLsewherE. in SUM, corReCt CausAl eXpLanatIons PIck Out some Salient neCesSAry pArT oF a total Set of causal faCtOrs, where saLiEncE is detERMined by a Number of factors, includinG What is iN faCt norMal aNd what are Our Actual IntERests. xVi We maY now rEvIsiT fEinbeRG'S pOinT tHat attribuTIOns Of blaMe ImplY causal Explanations. This is MOst Obvious in caseS whEre tHE ThIng FOr WHicH tHE peRSOn is blamed is a coNsequence oF tHE pErson's actiONs. FOr Example, To blame SomeoNE for the Fire is to iMply that hEr ActiONS caUsed it: she iS the one wHo struck tHE matcH, Or Who diD noT pay atTeNtiOn, or wHo did pAY thE arsoNist. AlTeRnativEly, we CaN blame a pErson for the action itself, ImplyiNg thaT shE herself wAs tHE acTion's causE, or pErhaps that Her ChoIce waS or HEr effOrts WErE. As fEinbeRg noTEs, the distINcTioN BEtWeen blaming SOMEonE for hEr aCTion anD blaMing someone for a coNSequence of her aCtioN IS ofTen MErelY vErbal. For examplE, we CaN SAy either "shE caused the fIre by strIkINg the Match," oR "She stArted
 something that we can man ipulate to  good  ef fec t.  Ifthething to be ex p lain ed is smoke coming fro m the  e n gine ,  f or ex ample,w ew i lllo ok  fo ra  p art t hat  needsto be repl ace d.  Here it isp er fectly app rop riate to say  th at the  c aus e  of t hesmoke  is th e  malfu nctioning  c a rburet o r, alth o u gh  cle arly a faulty car b ur e tor cannot cau se smo ke al l byits elf. Or wi tn ess t h e vario u se x p lan a tions of NewYork City's plu ngingcr ime rate.The p ol i ceattribute i t 8to good p olicin g , the M a yor att ribute s i t t o br o ad er  so ci a l p o li cy, and  opposin gpo litic ians a t t ribu teit t o thi ngs over whic h t he M a yor  hasno co ntro l,  such  as an  uptu rn  in the nationa l ec onomy. Of  co ur sean y hon e st per son  wo uld adm it that the  c r i m erate is influenced  b y al l of the se thi n gs .B ut diffe re ntpeop l e  have  dif f er ent inte rests, an dso high li ght di ff ere ntparts ,  ofthe ca usal con ditio n s that were to g ether suffici e nt f or thedro p in crime.  Non e  ofthis ne edb e ins incer e, no r  is salience someth in g that  is m erely subject ive. The a r g u ment ove r "t h e" cause of the d rop i n crime is an argum ent o ver whic h of many c ausal fa cto rssho uld b edeemed most i m p orta nt , given  ou r colle cti veint ere st s and giv en whatwe  k no wabo ut hu m an behav io r,ho w w e wan t  to sp end l imit ed  r e sou rces, w h at p olic ie shave  wh at  cost s, e t c.Likewis e, a corr ect expl an at ion ofwhat caused a  p anic focus es  on  whati s  in fact  abnormal about the sit u ation.Aswas n oted  above, i f t he pre sen c e of e lephan ts in  t her o om we r e  n otin  fact abno r m al,  then  a  cor rect ex planation would ha v e t o focus elsew her e. I n su m,c or r ect  c a usa l explanations pi ck out som es al ient neces s ary  p art ofa total  seto f causa l factors , where s al ienc e isdetermined  by a nu mber of f a ctors ,  i nclud ing  whatis  in  fact  norma l  an d wha t areou r actu al in te rests. x vi We may now revisit F einber g's p oin t that at tri b uti ons of bl ameimply caus alexp lanat ion s . Thi s is mo sto bviou s in cases whe r ethe t hi ng for whic h t heperso n i s  blame d is  a consequence of the person's a ctio n s . F ore xamp le , to blame som eon ef o r the fi re  is to impl y that h er actio ns cau sed it : she i s th e  one w ho s tru ck the ma tch ,o r who d id  n o t payatte nt ion, o r whod id p a y  the arsonist. A ltern a t ively ,  we  canbl ame a p e rson  for the a ction itsel f, imp lyin g tha t she h er self w asth e action's cause, or  perh aps tha thercho ice wa s or h er ef fort swer e. As Fei n b er g  n ot e s,thedisti nc tion  betweenb laming s ome o ne forhe r a c t ion an d  b l a ming someo nefor a c onsequence of h e ra ction  is of ten me rely ve r bal .For exa mpl e ,  we can s ay either "Sh ecaus ed the f ir e by  s tri ki ng the match,"or "Shestarted
 something_that we_can manipulate to good_effect. If_the_thing to_be_explained is smoke_coming from the_engine, for example, we_will look for_a_part that needs to be replaced. Here it is perfectly appropriate to say that_the_cause of_the_smoke_is the malfunctioning carburetor, although_clearly a faulty carburetor cannot_cause smoke_all by itself. Or witness the various explanations_of_New York City's_plunging crime rate. The police attribute it 8 to_good policing, the Mayor attributes it_to broader social_policy,_and_opposing politicians attribute it_to things over which the Mayor_has no control, such as an_upturn in the national economy. Of course_any honest person would admit that_the crime rate is influenced_by all_of these things. But different_people have different_interests, and_so highlight different_parts, of the causal conditions that_were together sufficient_for the drop in crime. None_of_this need be_insincere,_nor_is salience_something that is_merely_subjective. The_argument_over "the" cause of the drop_in_crime is an argument over which of_many causal factors should_be_deemed most important, given_our collective interests and given_what we know about human behavior,_how we_want to_spend limited resources, what policies have what costs, etc. Likewise, a_correct explanation of what caused a_panic focuses on what_is in_fact_abnormal about the_situation._As was_noted above, if the presence of elephants_in the_room were not in fact abnormal,_then a correct explanation_would_have to focus elsewhere. In sum,_correct causal explanations pick out some_salient necessary part of a_total_set_of causal factors, where salience_is determined by a number of_factors, including what_is in fact normal and what are_our_actual interests. xvi We may now_revisit_Feinberg's point that attributions of blame_imply_causal_explanations. This is most obvious_in cases where the thing for_which the person is blamed is a consequence of_the person's actions._For example, to blame someone_for_the_fire is to imply that her actions caused it: she_is the_one who struck_the match, or who did not pay attention, or who_did pay the arsonist. Alternatively, we can_blame a person for the action itself, implying that she herself_was the action's cause, or perhaps that her_choice was or her efforts were. As_Feinberg notes, the distinction_between_blaming someone for her action and blaming_someone_for_a_consequence of her_action is often_merely verbal. For_example, we_can say either_"She caused_the fire by_striking_the match," or "She started