Agreed, which is why we have duress laws.
Of course not. For the hammer or whatever was used to smash your finger caused the pain. No choice on your part could prevent that outcome.
But if a criminal threatens to shoot you if you don’t hand over your money, this threat does not cause you to hand over your money. You have the ability to choose not to do so.
I think reasonable folk who believe in a libertarian kind of human freedom, acknowledge that the reason that knowing a great deal about what influences shaped a person allows us to so regularly correctly predict their responses and choices, is that such genetic and environmental influences play a huge role in impacting our decisions.
But they also hold that there is some locus of will in persons that can independently transcend all that, and sometimes choose to do what would violate the whole constellation of influences that shapes our motives, personality, and behavior.
Of course, more skeptical behaviorists doubt that any such locus actually exists, and believe whatever are most powerful motives that have been shaped in us will explain and determine our choice.
But if you value your life more then the money and you are limited to only these two choices it seems to me the threat was either a direct cause or influencing cause, but either way significant enough to qualify as a cause.
I disagree that such a narrow view of the word cause holds here.
Being threatened with a gun can and usually would cause a person to make a particular decision. That another, rare person may not be caused to make that same decision at gunpoint does not change anything with regard to the freedom, or absence of it, of the first person’s decision.
Using force to effect–note the word is effect not affect–a decision is a textbook example of causing it. As a verb, the word cause, among other things, means “to effect by command, authority, or force,” according to Merriam/Webster.
"…to make a particular decision." The fact that the person makes the decision whether or not to give the gunman his money, indicates that he has free will. The threat doesn’t cause his decision, although it is a very strong influence on the victim to decide to give the gunman his money.
There is another scenario, the armed citizen in the good old U, S, of A, will take matters into her or his own hands and deal with the ‘A’ hole. You can be a pacifist, but understand we here in the US will stand up not only for our rights but to protect our property. I feel like Don you don’t get it. Good for you. stay out of our business. 
By definition, the threat causes the decision. Note the word force in the definition of cause.
I don’t see how a dictionary resolves this debate, or how “cause” applies to a factor (threatened by a gun) wherein even a few differ and choose not to let that factor control their choice.
Not unless the meaning of “cause” is not parallel to “determine,” but is just another way to say “strongly influences.” For I think of the principle of “cause” and effect, as implying that the same effect is invariably produced by the given cause.
It is precisely the dictionary one should use to resolve the issue!
The relevant meaning doesn’t say “to strongly influence.” It says “to effect by command, authority, or force,” according to Merriam/Webster. And to effect means “to bring about.”
I don’t agree that the same effect is invariably produced by the given cause. There are variables that can neutralize a cause so that it does not always bring about the expected effect. For example, in this case, the person threatened may be compromised mentally and consequently may not act rationally.
But the important thing is, in those cases when a person hands over money when being threatened at gunpoint, the threat does effect by force, so it is a cause.
It appears we interpret the same definition differently. By our shared definition, ISTM if a presumed “cause” of a certain kind of action in reality many times does not “bring about” that action, but is “neutralized” by other stronger influences (factors), then it doesn’t necessarily qualify as the “cause” of the said action, nor is that action an effect literally “forced” by such cause.
Rather the supposed “cause” is exposed as being only one major factor in that very possible outcome. The reality in your interpretation is that effects can have numerous ‘causes’ which Paidion would equate with competing ‘influences’ on the outcome. The issue in most such quibbles is shared semantics.
First, what is this “many times” stuff? Where did that come from all of a sudden? I was talking about the rare individual who would risk his or her life for the money in his or her pocket. That is not a common event.
Second, many causes do not always bring about the same or expected effect. For example, consider the temperature at which water freezes. Cooling water to 0 degrees C normally causes it to freeze. But other factors can modify that cause and effect relationship. One is the amount of solute, like NaCl, that is dissolved in the water. Consequently, salty water will not freeze at 0 degrees C but at lower temperatures, depending on the amount of solute present. But that in no way means that water chilled to O degrees C will not be often caused by that chilling to freeze.
Practically all causes have extenuating circumstances tied to their actions in leading to the expected effect. Why should causes of human actions be considered differently?
Of course, but I’d never argue that water at 0 degrees is the "cause" of it freezing. The explanation of freezing is far more complex than that. The temperature is just a common marker assuming a bunch of factors are uniform.
But our agreeing there are multiple factors (‘causes’ or ‘influences’) in producing effects and in explaining human choices is enormous common ground, and seems consistent with Paidion’s contention (which for him includes among ‘causes’ some kind of autonomous will determined by the human choice maker).
But I never said water at 0 degrees C is the cause of its freezing. That’s a very unscientific (and uncharitable) way of wording how I expressed the issue.
The cause is chilling water to 0 degrees C, since in most cases chilling water to 0 degrees C does freeze it.
But I think I do understand what you mean to say. But then I ask, what is a cause, according to your way of thinking? Will you please list a couple of examples of causes and effects, because you seem to regard nothing as a cause.
Yes , plus this victim may have a family and if he a Christian he is obligated to stay alive and provide and protect his family. Also he may be a pacifist and believe in non resistance to violence or the threat of violence. In this case we see the threat of violence is the equivalence of the actual violence thereby raising the threat to the level of a cause.
This is the situation we have here. There are people who gave up their money at gunpoint (call them G) and people who did not give up their money at gunpoint (call them NG). Within each of these categories there are people who would have otherwise given up their money (call them O) and people who would not have otherwise given up their money (call them NO).
Now for people in the G, NO subgroup, there is no question that being threatened at gunpoint is the cause of their giving up their money. That is my point. This subgroup is made up of people who gave up their money at gunpoint but would not have otherwise given up their money. Their free will was clearly overcome by something external to them in that a force outside of them didn’t just influence their choice but actually caused or determined their choice.
The other subgroups are rare and their existence almost defies logic.
That is, the G, O subgroup is made up of people who gave up their money at gunpoint and would have otherwise given up their money anyway. This is a rare subgroup who would give away their money to anyone who approached them, with or without the threat of a gun.
The NG, NO subgroup is made up of people who did not give up their money at gunpoint and would not have otherwise given up their money. This, too, is a rare subgroup who acts irrationally and without a future, for their biological fitness would approach zero.
Finally, the NG, O subgroup is made up of people who did not give up their money at gunpoint but would have otherwise given up their money. This is a really rare subgroup who are bizarrely principled morally beyond belief. They, too, would have a biological fitness that would approach zero.
So, despite the possible presence of other subgroups, the most abundant subgroup (i.e., G, NO) by far has clearly had their choice caused by something external to them and in that way, their free will in this case is non-existent by definition.
Jack Benny had to do some soul searching. 
EXACTLY. This is my understanding of “cause”. But as I stated, the person threatened by a gunman to hand over his money is not caused, that is, NOT FORCED to hand it over. If he were forced to do so, he would be unable to do otherwise. But he is able to do otherwise. He can refuse to hand it over, even though he knows it could result in his death.
Since I said semantics are usually key, great question! I think of “cause and effect” as epitomized in physics, but I’ll try a few examples :
The cause of heavy objects off a building moving downward is the pull called gravity.
The cause for that object not moving is what Newton called the law of inertia.
The cause of it being warmer today is that a hotter air mass moved here.
The cause of her being born with red hair is the genetic makeup she inherited.
The cause of my being out of work, is that my boss laid me off.
But we’d agreed a “cause” is what brings about a certain effect “by force,” and I see that in human choices, ‘facing a gun’ does not inevitably “bring about” a given effect (i.e. determine surrendering money) or “force” such an outcome. Thus I’d say “cause” and effect need not apply to what happens when that ‘cause’ occurs. Of course, other conceptions of “cause” may fit fine.
