 The main difference between sense II and sense III of the term is that whereas in the practical sciences of nature the cause of an event is an antecedent state of affairs considered from the point of view of an interest in controlling and manipulating the natural environment, in the theoretical sciences of nature the causes of natural events are viewed independently of any impact that agents can have on the natural environment: a cause in sense III is unconditional. The key difference between sense I, on the one hand, and sense II and III on the other, is that in sense II and III a cause is an antecedent condition, whereas in sense I it is a logical ground. When one explains an agent’s intention in acting by ascribing the agent a motive or reason, the action is explained not by invoking something that went on before (an antecedent condition in the form of an inner psychological process) but the motive which rationalises it. Conflating sense I with either sense II or III is to conflate normative/rationalizing with causal explanations thereby also failing to grasp the distinction between their respective explananda: actions and events. The distinction between the different senses of causation, like the distinction between the expedient and the right, is not a distinction between separate classes of things; it is a distinction between concepts that may coincide in their instances.