In this situation their was no sufficient causal condition in his going to canada or not going. This is a prominent issue that Chisholm argues against. The reason being is lets suppose another entity was waiting in the airport to get to canada. Lets assume that this person would have interfered with our examples path to Canada. In this instance it would be incorrect to say that our example could have gotten to Canada, however, it is true to say that in this situation there isn't a sufficient causal condition that would have stopped her/him from going to Canada. To clarify, the sufficient casual condition would have only arisen if the person in the airport freely
In this situation their was no sufficient causal condition in his going to canada or not going. This is a prominent issue that Chisholm argues against. The reason being is lets suppose another entity was waiting in the airport to get to canada. Lets assume that this person would have interfered with our examples path to Canada. In this instance it would be incorrect to say that our example could have gotten to Canada, however, it is true to say that in this situation there isn't a sufficient causal condition that would have stopped her/him from going to Canada. To clarify, the sufficient casual condition would have only arisen if the person in the airport freely