ABSTRACT Recent works have proposed a treatment of grounding “in the image of causation”. There are important analogies between grounding and causation: both seem to be ‘building’ relations, both seem to be strict orders, and both seem amenable to representation by models of structural equations (cf. Schaffer, 2016; Wilson, 2018). But it seems also that there are important differences, because causation is usually considered as an external relation, while grounding is internal; there are cases of probabilistic causation, but there is nothing like probabilistic grounding; grounding is taken to be a well-founded relation, but not causation; grounding entails ontological supervenience, but not causation. It is argued here that most of those supposed differences are motivated by a Humean conception of causation in which there are no necessary connections between cause and effect. A non-Humean view of causation, though, makes the unification of grounding and causation much more reasonable that any separate treatment.

RESUMEN Trabajos recientes han propuesto un tratamiento de la fundación “a la imagen de la causalidad”. Hay importantes analogías entre la fundación y la causalidad: ambas parecen ser relaciones de ‘construcción’, ambas parecen ser órdenes estrictos y ambas parecen ser representables por modelos de ecuaciones estructurales (cf. Schaffer, 2016; Wilson, 2018). Pero también parece que hay importantes diferencias, porque la causalidad es usualmente considerada como una relación externa, mientras que la fundación es interna; hay casos de causalidad probabilística, pero no hay nada como una fundación probabilística; la fundación se considera una relación ‘bien fundada’, pero no la causalidad; la fundación implica superveniencia ontológica, pero no la causalidad. Se argumenta aquí que la mayoría de estas supuestas diferencias están motivadas por una concepción humeana de la causalidad en la que no hay conexiones necesarias entre causa y efecto. Una perspectiva no humeana de la causalidad, sin embargo, hace que la unificación de la fundación y la causalidad sea mucho más razonable que cualquier tratamiento separado.

Abstract Suppose that it is metaphysically possible that the mereological fusion of all contingent states of affairs has a cause. Whatever the nature of the state of affairs that causes such mereological fusion, it should be metaphysically necessary because, otherwise, it could be part of the mereological fusion it causes. It is possible, then, that there is at least one necessary state of affairs. This state of affairs is a causal relatum, so it must include at least one concrete necessary object. But if something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary because it is not metaphysically contingent whether something is necessary or doesn't. Then, it results that it is metaphysically necessary that there is, at least, a concrete necessary object. This work presents and discusses this argument.

Resumen Se ha propuesto un "derecho a la felicidad" como parte de los derechos humanos de tercera generación. Este trabajo considera de manera crítica la inteligibilidad de tal derecho fundamental. Se argumenta que se puede efectuar una distinción gruesa entre concepciones "internalistas" y "externalistas" de la felicidad. Las concepciones internalistas sostienen que la felicidad requiere de acciones libres. Las concepciones externalistas sostienen que la felicidad puede ser conseguida con independencia de la voluntad de la persona, simplemente por la obtención de ciertos objetos, estados o eventos. Se argumenta que bajo cualquiera de estas interpretaciones, un derecho a la felicidad no tiene sentido. Se alega que es imposible cumplir universalmente con un derecho a la felicidad "externalista", pues el Estado solo puede hacer a alguien "feliz" al costo de la infelicidad de otras personas. Un derecho a la felicidad bajo la interpretación internalista, por otra parte, es también imposible porque no hay nada que pueda hacer un Estado -o un tercero- para reemplazar la actividad libre de una persona.

Abstract A "right to happiness" has been proposed as part of third generation human rights. This study takes a critical look at the intelligibility of a fundamental right of this sort, arguing that a gross distinction can be made between "internalist" and "externalist" ideas of happiness. Internalist ideas hold that happiness requires free action. Externalist ideas hold that happiness can be achieved independent of the will of the person, simply by obtaining certain objects, circumstances or events. It is argued that a right to happiness makes no sense in light of either of these interpretations, since it is impossible to comply universally with an "externalist" right to happiness. The state can only make someone "happy" at the expense of the happiness of others. Conversely, a right to happiness according to the internalist interpretation is impossible as well, simply because there is nothing a state or a third party can do to replace the free action of a person.

Resumo Propôs-se um "direito à felicidade" como parte dos direitos humanos de terceira geração. Este trabalho considera de maneira crítica a inteligibilidade de tal direito fundamental. Argumenta-se que pode ser feita uma grande diferença entre concepções "internalistas" e "externalistas" da felicidade. As concepções internalistas sustentam que a felicidade requer ações livres. As concepções externalistas sustentam que a felicidade pode ser conseguida com independência da vontade da pessoa, simplesmente pela obtenção de certos objetos, estados ou eventos. Argumenta-se que, sob qualquer dessas interpretações, um direito à felicidade não faz sentido. Alega-se que é impossível cumprir universalmente com um direito à felicidade "externalista", pois o Estado só pode fazer alguém "feliz" ao custo da infelicidade de outras pessoas. Um direito à felicidade sob a interpretação internalista, por outra parte, é também impossível porque não há nada que possa fazer um Estado -ou um terceiro- para substituir a atividade livre de uma pessoa.

It has been traditionally sustained that predicates attributed to God and to the creatures are analogical predicates. But, what is analogy? Several philosophers have thought that analogy should be taken as a form of ambiguity. Here we argue that predicates attributed to God and to creatures are neither ambiguous nor vague. Following some suggestions given by McDaniel, we propose a view of analogy in which the semantic phenomenon is associated with the more or less natural character of the property or properties that the entities that satisfy the analogous predicate instantiate. A predicate "θ" is analogous if and only if the property Θ, which something instantiates, if and only if it is θ, is less natural that any property Ξ so that anything that instantiates Ξ, instantiates Θ. Furthermore, it is required that the entities of which the analogous term is predicated should be either ontologically or epistemically dependent on each other.

Se ha sostenido tradicionalmente que los predicados atribuidos a Dios y a las criaturas son análogos. Pero, ¿qué es la analogía? Varios filósofos han pensado que la analogía debe ser considerada como una forma de ambigüedad. Argumentamos aquí que los predicados atribuidos a Dios y a las criaturas no son ambiguos o vagos. Siguiendo algunas sugerencias de McDaniel, proponemos una concepción de la analogía donde el fenómeno semántico está asociado con el carácter más o menos natural de la propiedad o propiedades que instancian las entidades que satisfacen el predicado análogo. Un predicado "θ" es análogo si y sólo si, la propiedad Θ, que algo instancia, si y sólo si es θ, es menos natural que cualquier propiedad Ξ tal que todo lo que instancie Ξ, instancia Θ. Además, se requiere que las entidades de las cuales el término análogo es predicado deban ser ontológica o epistémicamente dependientes unas de otras.

a state of affairs is a non-mereological structure composed by universals, objects and times. In principle, a state of affairs is not grounded in its components, for those components could exist, but not the state of affairs that they compose. The introduction of other relations of 'instantiation' doesn't improve the situation, if those relations are universal. A state of affairs, though, is grounded on a universal, object or objects, time and a trope that, essentially, is the instantiation of that universal in that object, or in those objects, in that time. If states of affairs are grounded in their constituents, then there is reason to admit tropes. Finally, several reasons by which states of affairs should be grounded are discussed.

un estado de cosas es una estructura no-mereológica compuesta por universales, objetos y tiempos. En principio, un estado de cosas no está fundado en sus componentes, pues tales componentes podrían existir, pero no el estado de cosas que componen. La introducción de otras relaciones de 'instanciación' no mejoran la situación, si tales relaciones son universales. Un estado de cosas, sin embargo, sí está fundado en un universal, uno o varios objetos, un tiempo y un tropo que, esencialmente, es la instanciación de tal universal en tal objeto, o en tales objetos, en tal tiempo. Si los estados de cosas están fundados en sus constituyentes, entonces hay una razón para admitir tropos. Finalmente, se discuten varias razones por los que los estados de cosas deben estar fundados.

The work presents the concept of a structural universal and the criticisms that have been leveled against it. A structural universal is a property had by an individual due to the nature of its proper parts and due to the relations obtaining between those parts. Mellor has argued that there is no reason to accept such universal in addition to the basic universals that compose them. David Lewis has argued -on the other hand- that it has not been satisfactorily explained how universals are composed by other universals. The composition by which a structural universal is given cannot be a set-theoretical construction or a mereological sum. Several proposals to explain the nature of structural universals are discussed. Finally it is argued that a structural universal should be understood as a complexion of higher-order universals.

El trabajo presenta una concepción causal de la modalidad metafísica en la que un estado de cosas es metafísicamente posible si y sólo si podría ser causado (en el pasado, el presente o el futuro) por entidades actuales. La concepción es contrastada con lo que se llama la concepción "combinatoria" de la modalidad, en la que cualquier cosa puede co-existir con cualquier otra. Este trabajo explica cómo debe interpretarse la noción de 'causalidad' en la teoría causal, qué diferencia existe entre las modalidades definidas de este modo y la modalidad nomológica, cómo deben tomarse las relaciones de accesibilidad entre mundos posibles y qué relación tiene la concepción causal con la necesidad de origen.

This work presents a causal conception of metaphysical modality in which a state of affairs is metaphysically possible if and only if it can be caused (in the past, the present or the future) by current entities. The conception is contrasted with what is called the "combinatorial" conception of modality, in which everything can coexist with anything else. This work explains how the notion of 'causality' should be construed in the causal theory, what difference exists between modalities thus defined from nomological modality, how accessibility relations between possible worlds should be interpreted, and what is the relation between the causal conception and the necessity of origin.