 Reflecting on this may lead us to distinguish a wide sense of causation (where S causes X if and only if S is causally relevant to X) from a narrow sense of causation. Bronner (2018) argues that an agent causes an outcome in this narrower sense of causation just if his behaviour falls on the doing side of the doing/allowing distinction. He argues that recognising two notions of causations explains why we are inclined to assert both (a) the claim that the agent who merely allows harm does not cause harm and (b) claims that e.g. the agent caused the house plant to die by failing to water it. Unfortunately, these assertions are explained in a way that suggests that appeal to causation will not help us defend the moral relevance of the distinction between doing and allowing harm.