Beyond Simplistic Causality: Nietzsche, Hume, and the Search for the True Drivers of Modern Slavery

The language we use when discussing the drivers of modern slavery is crucial because it shapes our understanding of the problem and, consequently, our policies and approaches to addressing it. When we use the term “cause” to describe factors like poverty, armed conflict, and domestic violence, we imply that addressing these issues will directly lead to a reduction in modern slavery. However, as we will see, this is absolutely not the case. We can treat vulnerabilities and risk factors until the cows come home, and there are excellent reasons to do that, but none of those reasons is addressing the cause of modern slavery.

Nietzsche’s Critique of Causality

Nietzsche’s ideas on causality are at the very centre of his reflections on epistemological and ontological problems. He rejected the notion of a single cause propelling an effect, seeing causality as a complex web of interacting forces and events rather than a linear chain of cause and effect. Nietzsche argued that we should not look for a small, isolated force as the cause, but rather examine the larger context and processes at play. This is where my widely-used metaphor comes in. Looking for cause, don’t look for that small force that pushes the boat out into the river, but find the source of the river. He believed that scientific concepts like “force” are ultimately anthropomorphic fictions that do not reflect the true nature of reality. For Nietzsche, causation is a non-linear process shaped by chance events and the will-to-power, rather than a simple cause-and-effect relationship. He claimed that “an intellect that saw cause and effect as a continuum, not, as we do, as arbitrary division and dismemberment — that saw the stream of the event — would reject the concept of cause and effect”.

Hume’s Scepticism about Causation

Nietzsche’s critique of causality is explicitly Humean, drawing on the empiricist philosopher’s scepticism about necessary connections between events. Hume argued that we can never perceive a necessary connection between cause and effect, only constant conjunction. Our belief in causation is based on habit and custom, not reason. Hume’s scepticism about causation undermines the idea that poverty, armed conflict, and other factors are direct causes of modern slavery. If we can never perceive necessary connections between events, then how can we claim that these conditions inevitably lead to enslavement?

The Constructivist Approach to Causality

Some philosophers, such as Hilary Putnam, have developed a constructivist conception of causality that aligns with Nietzsche’s critique. According to this view, causal events are constitutively dependent on human interpreters in the sense that we individuate events into cause and effect when attempting to understand the world in experience. From this perspective, factors like poverty and armed conflict are not causes of modern slavery per se, but vulnerabilities that increase the risk of exploitation for some individuals. The true cause lies in the demand for exploited labour and human trafficking, which is shaped by human interpreters and social systems. In this approach, a market exists, or rather pre-exists, the enslavement of anyone. Their vulnerability makes them a viable product for that market. The market is not created by the existence of that vulnerable person; they meet a demand for a certain product.

The Limits of Causal Thinking

Nietzsche warns against causal reasoning generally, arguing that it is one of the greatest sources of error we have in understanding human behaviour. He thinks that causal thinking in psychology is a type of mechanistic, reductive thinking that fails to capture the complexity of the human mind and behaviour. For Nietzsche, the fact that our causal knowledge comes from our minds and only our minds means that it is actually more prone to error and falsehoods. He thinks that while we easily see the ways in which drives and passions lead us into error, false causalities are much harder to weed out.

Rethinking Causation and Modern Slavery

Language really does matter in how we convince people this causes that. The language we use when discussing the drivers of modern slavery matters because it shapes our understanding of the problem and, consequently, our approach to addressing it. By using the term “cause” to describe factors like poverty and armed conflict, we risk oversimplifying the problem and misdirecting our efforts. The insights of philosophers like Nietzsche and Hume challenge us to rethink our assumptions about causation and modern slavery. They suggest that factors like poverty and armed conflict are vulnerabilities rather than direct causes, and that the true driver of modern slavery lies in the demand for exploited labour and human trafficking. By recognising the limits of causal thinking and embracing a more nuanced, constructivist approach to understanding modern slavery, we can begin to develop more effective and targeted interventions that address the root causes of this global scourge. Only by being much more careful about this can we hope to make meaningful progress in combating modern slavery and creating a more just and equitable world for all.

References and related reading:

Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739–1740)

Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1748)

Nietzsche, F. (1974). The gay science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage Books.

Nietzsche, F. (1968). The will to power (W. Kaufmann & R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Vintage Books.

Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, H. (1983). Realism and reason. Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face. Harvard University Press.

Putnam, H. (1999). The threefold cord: Mind, body, and world. Columbia University Press.

Rayman, J. (2009). Nietzsche on causation. Philosophical Topics, 37(1), 121–140.

Richardson, J. (2004). Nietzsche’s new Darwinism. Oxford University Press.