The paper focuses on two aspects of Hugh McCann’s theory of action and shows that they stand in conflict. The first of them is McCann’s defense of the claim that all overt actions are grounded in a special kinds of mental action – volitions (from the Gilbert Ryle’s famous ‘dilemma’ argument). The second aspect is his answer to the problem of causal deviance. The paper shows that the same element that makes his theory immune to Ryle’s argument limits its strength in dealing with the problem of causal deviance. In conclusion it appears that the only version of volitionism that can be defended is its understanding which restricts the scope of human action to mental activity.