You’re misreading the quote, I think. Hill isn’t talking about the planned results of one’s action being “guaranteed” or determined, but rather simply stating that action itself is impossible without some form of causality.
In the quote Hill seems to be assuming that any form of causality would be in some way deterministic, which makes sense to me. Whether or not you agree with it is another question.
EDIT: Another way to think about it is that the determinism Hill is referring to doesn’t have to do with whether certain results are guaranteed (as you seem to be thinking of), but rather simply with the fact that a result is guaranteed.
That is, some form of causal determinism (A causes B causes C) must be assumed in order for the whole idea of “action” to make any sense, according to Hill.
I know I’ve stated my point at least twice now in slightly different ways, but I struggled (more than) a bit in trying to sensibly formulate an answer to your question.
You’re misreading the quote, I think. Hill isn’t talking about the planned results of one’s action being “guaranteed” or determined, but rather simply stating that action itself is impossible without some form of causality.
In the quote Hill seems to be assuming that any form of causality would be in some way deterministic, which makes sense to me. Whether or not you agree with it is another question.
EDIT: Another way to think about it is that the determinism Hill is referring to doesn’t have to do with whether certain results are guaranteed (as you seem to be thinking of), but rather simply with the fact that a result is guaranteed.
That is, some form of causal determinism (A causes B causes C) must be assumed in order for the whole idea of “action” to make any sense, according to Hill.
I know I’ve stated my point at least twice now in slightly different ways, but I struggled (more than) a bit in trying to sensibly formulate an answer to your question.