In order to assess the plausibility of that claim, we need to disambiguate two possible readings of it, a causal reading and a metaphysical reading.
Nobody would deny this causal reading of Sandel's claim, but it is not at all clear how it would support any normative conclusions.
On a "causal" reading, for a will W to be determined by X is for X to cause W to be exercised in a particular way.
The first, causal reading of the claim is obviously true: persons are the sort of persons that they are as a result of their causal interactions with other persons and groups of persons.
The second causal reading is equally plausible, and that is that some patient groups are associated with greater risk of death at different times.
Hunt suggests a causal chain: reading epistolary novels about characters unlike oneself exercises the ability to put oneself in other people's shoes, which turns one against cruel punishments and other abuses of human rights.
Kush and colleagues' ([2005]) longitudinal study demonstrated that students' reading attitudes measured in Grades 2 and 3 predicted reading attainment in Grade 7 but did not predict reading attainment in Grades 2 and 3, a pattern suggesting a causal link between reading attitude and reading attainment and what the authors called a "temporal-interaction effect" in the linkage.
Many of the above studies imply a causal association between reading attitude and reading attainment (Schofield [1980]), leading researchers to regard reading attitude as an affective stimulant of reading development (see, in this regard, McKenna et al. [1995]).
In both figures, the middle title should have read: "Causal claims from correlation [not casual as was published]." Cite this as: BMJ 2014 349 g7666.
Although the results are consistent with causal effects of reading, complex processes of parental or teacher influence could cause both improved reading at earlier ages and improved intelligence at later ages, without reading itself doing the causal "work".
