In Chisholm's Argument that people can be held morally responsible, he makes a distinction between two kinds of cause: immanent and transuent. Explain this distinction and how he thinks it gets him out of the dilemma of determinism (from question 2). How does the distinct salvage moral responsibility? While Holbach does not use the term "immanent causation" he gives a description of it and says it's the primary mistake that advocates of free will make. What, for Holbach, is wrong with the idea of immanent causation?