The Principle of Universal Causation primarily suggests that everything has a cause. Conversely, this principle suggests the principle of cause and effect where all things taken as effects came about from their respective causes and that these causes also came about from certain causes (Castell). In effect, it appears that the Principle of Universal Causation regresses indefinitely in terms of causes and effects unless an ultimate cause is established. There is the presupposition that the Principle of Universal Causation gives rise to the Determinist argument.More specifically, the process of causes-and-effects so observable in the environment establishes the notion that these causes-and-effects serve as the foundation for the claim that everything else is already determined.

The concept of determinism entails the idea of being `determined' in the sense that an object or an individual, for example, is so construed in such a way that the object or individual cannot act in certain ways or is limited to perform in specific ways as defined by the object or the person's physical being or structure.For example, although an individual can decide to bend his or her index finger backwards such that it is able to touch his or her wrist, that same individual nevertheless is restricted by the way in which his or her physical composition or anatomy is `determined'. Far more intriguing is the religious argument that human beings are determined in such a way that God has so created the life of man that man is unable to go beyond what God has apparently so dictated him or her to do.While certain dogmas indicate that man is nevertheless able to decide on certain matters, religion will argue that such decisions of man are still under the helm of God's command or decision.

In this sense, even the breathing of man manifests in that way precisely because God has constituted man to be that way. Apart from the religious aspect, determinism can also be observed from even certain games such as chess. For instance, the pawn moves forward one square at a time because it is determined to move in that way.In any case, the concept of determinism presupposes the notion that certain things act, behave, or manifest certain things because it is how they are constituted, and that, because of their constitution, they are determined to act, behave, or manifest certain things in such and such ways. The constitution of a thing or object can be further understood in terms of Aristotle's four causes.

Aristotle's four causes lead us to the understanding of the is -ness of things, or as to why this object is such and such.These causes are oftentimes easily misunderstood as we may interpret the word in terms of the modern idea of ``cause-and-effect''. Rather, it must be noted that these causes are explanatory factors in obtaining answers to the question ``why'', such as ``why is this a chair? '', or ``why is this a table? '', or ``why is that a rock? '', and so on. One classic example is when one inquires something about man , asking ``what is it made from'' the reply to which is ``flesh and so on''. One might still ask further ``what is its essence or form'' and get the answer ``a biped which has the capacity of reasoning''.

Then one might still ask ``what produced it'', to which the answer in the Aristotelian sense would be ``the father''. Finally, the last question can be posed, ``for what purpose? '' and be resolved with the answer ``to carry out satisfactorily the function of a man''. The first of the responses is what Aristotle claims as the material cause of the object. That is, it is that from which a thing comes to be which is constitutive of or is present in the object itself. The second is the formal cause , which its sense can be taken as the very form or pattern of the object.The efficient cause is reflected on the third response and is the source of the very cause of the object in the sense of cause-and-effect.

Lastly, the final cause tells us something about the object's end, or what it is essentially for (Mure). These four causes was of primary significance to Aristotle's understanding of natural objects - plants and animals. Far more notable is the final cause which provides elucidations about the object's end ( telos ) quite apart from the first two which tells us more of the object's structure or form and the second cause which speaks primarily of the very cause of the object in modern-day language.The end in the final cause is not be confused with the object's purpose which someone may have in mind. What is being revealed by the final cause is the object's end (such as a tiger's end ) or that which dwells at the end of the consistent sequence of progressive changes that typical specimen go through, such as the telos of a developing dog is to be a dog.

One can not only observe the belief in causes and effects in things or inanimate objects but also in humanity.Earle Chinese philosophers, for example, have deeply looked into the intrinsic character of man which comprises his being, specifically his moral existence. As to why man acts in such and such ways, the answer rests on the inherent traits of man and the changes he experiences along the way. As a guiding idea, it should be noted that the Principle of Universal Causation is portrayed, albeit without any direct observable reference, to the ancient Chinese philosopher's theory of human nature which tells us that individuals behave in certain ways because these are caused and determined by their human nature.

Degeneration for Hzun Tzu is the most likely destiny of man once he is unable to take control over his nature. That is, man is inherently evil and is thereby prone to the withering effects of the temptations caused by this evil nature (Taylor and Arbuckle). This very nature pushes man nearer to the reaches of jealousy, profit and hatred, all of which can harbor further evil upon man and can lead him towards torment and the eventual degeneration that await him.Further, these ill-effects of man's inability to control his evil nature and to cope with the situations that may arise out of his very nature will be the very reason for a chaotic realm filled with evil men, inducing calamity and more unwanted events which pose great harm to him and to the rest.

Hzun Tzu's theory asserts and reaffirms the idea that everything, including man and his actions, is caused by the manner in which everything is determined. On the other hand, Mencius strongly proposes that men are imbued with the four beginnings. What he says is not to be interpreted in such a way that men are already sage-like within themselves.``The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of human-heartedness. The feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of righteousness.

The feeling of modesty and yielding is the beginning of propriety. The sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom (Yu-Lan). '' Apparently, the Principle of Universal Causation envelops Mencius' theory of human nature. The feelings and senses of humanity, for example, are causes for several effects and that these causes, the four beginnings, are likewise caused by the need for man to develop himself as a moral person.In the end, these series of causes and effects determine man's life in such a way that humanity will behave and act in certain ways as prescribed by the way in which they are determined not only by their physical constitution but also by their moral foundations.

In effect, Mencius' theory of human nature reaffirms the claim of the determinist argument from the principle of universal causation (Hwang). On the contrary, David Hume offers a different approach towards the principle of causation.While there remains the belief that the principle of causation holds strong to the claim that everything has a cause or is caused by another, Hume asserts that the principle of causation cannot rest on the idea that everything else stands in relation with one another. That is, given the principle of causation, Hume argues that, although there may truly be a system of cause and effect, it cannot be the case that the causality of things stands in relation with one another primarily because the explanation for experiences and events rests on other experiences and events.Hume believes that the principle of causation cannot be established as a matter of fact because the principle of causation cannot be discovered through man's reason but through reason. If it is true that the principle of causation does not guarantee the presupposition of a relation of things such as the scheme of cause-and-effect, then it can hardly be said that everything else is determined specifically through the causation of things.

The response to Hume's argument can be stated in the belief that the fact that there are causes and effects guarantees the presumption that there is a relation between things. The fact that certain things are derived from certain causes leads to the presumption that there is indeed a relation. Otherwise, the causes are not true causes and the effects are not really derived from their causes. More importantly, the claim that everything is due to certain causes amounts to the claim that there are certain ways in which things are constituted and, hence, determined.The way in which things are caused is proof of the way in which things are constituted not only in terms of their physical composition but also in terms of their abstract properties such as the human nature of man.

As the Principle of Universal Causation holds firm to the idea that everything has a cause and, conversely, to the idea that nothing can come out of nothing, it is indeed the case that certain things are determined by the way in which they are caused.