Abstract

Immanuel Kant attempts to derive the principle of causality from our observation of events’ temporal succession. His argument, however, faces difficult objections. These objections show that his argument is unable to draw the strong necessity of causation out of the weaker necessity of temporal succession. Thomists generally offer a different sort of argument from Kant. They seek to derive the principle of causality from the concept of actual contingent being. I compare the Kantian and Thomistic arguments, and I show that the Thomistic argument is successful where the Kantian argument fails. I also defend the Thomistic argument from possible Kantian objections.