 The standard view is that causation is a binary relation between two relata: cause and effect. However, some suggest that causation may be a ternary or a quaternary relation. Inspired by van Fraassen (1980)’s work on contrastive explanation, we could take causation to be a ternary, or 3-place, relation between a cause, an effect, and a contrast for the effect. On this view, the logical form of the causal relation is: c is a cause of e, rather than e*. For instance, it seems correct to say that Adam’s being hungry caused him to eat the apple, rather than toss it aside. But it seems wrong to say that Adam’s being hungry caused him to eat the apple, rather than the pear. So changing the contrast for the effect seems to makes a difference to causation. Hitchcock (1993, 1995a, 1996) gives a contrastive probabilistic theory of causation, according to which causation is a ternary relation between a cause, a contrast for the cause, and an effect. On this view, the logical form of the causal relation is: c, rather than c*, is a cause of e. For instance, it can seem that Paul’s smoking a pack a day, rather than not at all, is a cause of his lung cancer. But it seems wrong that Paul’s smoking a pack a day, rather than two packs a day, is a cause of his lung cancer. Schaffer (2005) combines these two views, arguing that causation is a quaternary relation between a cause, a contrast for the cause, an effect, and a contrast for the effect. On this view, the logical form of the causal relation is: c, rather than c*, is a cause of e, rather than e*.