Final answer:
The Dissent separates causation in fact from foreseeable causation by the foreseeability of consequences. A person is generally responsible for direct and foreseeable outcomes, but not for unforeseeable and tenuous links in a chain of events. Examples include the differences in responsibility for directly causing a slip and fall and the subsequent life changes due to that fall.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Dissent's argument about the line between causation in fact and foreseeable causation addresses the extent of a person's responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The point at which a person should stop being held accountable for all downstream consequences is generally when an event is no longer a reasonably foreseeable outcome of their actions. For example, if someone leaves a garden hose running, causing a sidewalk to become slippery and someone to fall, the person responsible for the hose can be seen as the direct cause of the fall.
However, if the injured party then misses a job interview and consequently doesn't get a job they would have otherwise secured, the hose-owner's liability becomes more tenuous, as it was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence. This concept is crucial in determining legal responsibility and liability in cases where the effects of an individual's action extend over time or through a chain of events. The importance of personal responsibility becomes evident in this context, particularly when it comes to demands on planetary resources and the sprawling consequences that follow from them.