Two principal strategies for the Theory of Action are examined, Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's. Davidson's is shown to be entirely untenable, both in its own terms and in terms of the needs of the field; and von Wright´s is shown to restore an option, opposed by Davidson, that saves a certain minimal concern of the field. The central issues turn on the inadequacy of the causal theory of action as formulated by Davidson and the quite independent matter that, under certain circumstances, the causal disjunction of reasons and actions is not convincing. The topics explored include: token physicalism, an extensional treatment of causality, anomalous monism, intentionality, reasons and causes, and the explanation of actions.