Explanations and Causes

Are all explanations causes? It seems to me that they are not. First, what is a cause? A cause is a bit like a conditional in logic: given P, Q follows. If Q did not happen after P, then P could not be a cause of Q. Scientific explanations are causal: Putting hydrochloric acid in sodium hydroxide causes the creation of water and sodium chloride. If the creation of water and sodium chloride did not occur, we could reasonably claim to have falsified my previous sentence. A cause determines its consequent.

Our next task is to see if an explanation is another word for a cause. I think that it is quite plausible for someone to say something they are not the same. I will steal an example from Stewart Goetz to help my view. Imagine a man is on death row because he brutally raped and murdered a woman. The executioner is the husband of the woman who was raped murdered. The executioner has two reasons for acting: he could act out of personal vengence or he could act out of his obligation to justice. After he executes the murderer, we want to know why he killed the murderer. Suppose he says, "I did it because I am the agent of the state. I was fulfilling my duties to justice." This seems a satisfactory explanation for his action. Suppose, on the other hand, that he invoked a desire for revenge as his reason. This also seems satisfactory.

Now, is it implausible to think that the executioner could have had both reasons in his psyche? Of course not. If explanations are causes, then is this not a case of overdetermination? The executioner has both reasons that can explain his action. At this point, something seems wrong. This is not a case of overdetermination. Thus, explanations are not causes.

Now, this goes against most of analytic philosophy, so I'd be interested to hear any thoughts. Sometimes after 1 am, my brain acts like it is on crack.