This paper explores the structural parallels between Gettier’s challenge to the justified true belief account of knowledge and Chisholm’s problem of wayward causal chains in action theory. Despite their distinct domains, both issues highlight the necessity of an adequate connection between explanation, justification, and outcome. Based on this analysis, this paper argues that the distinction between theoretical and practical rationality is less rigid than traditionally assumed. The paper further contends that, while a solution to the issue of wayward causal chains can at least be hypothesized, previous analyses have primarily focused on a causal model where causality does not ensure intentionality when a desire and a belief fail to produce an action in the right way. However, when considering an alternative theory of intention, wayward causal chains no longer appear to pose a fundamental challenge to the causal theory. Therefore, Bratman’s Planning Theory is proposed as a potential solution, offering an alternative account of intention.