Knobe, Joshua. (2003) “Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language.” Analysis, 63, 190-193.
Read the full paper as a pdf file.
Summary: The paper is an experimental investigation of the role that moral considerations play in people’s concept of intentional action.
For example, in one experiment, subjects were randomly assigned either to a ‘harm condition’ or a ‘help condition.’ Subjects in the harm condition were given the following vignette:
The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.’
The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’
They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
They were then asked whether or not the chairman harmed the environment intentionally.
Subjects in the help condition received a vignette that was almost exactly the same, except that the word ‘harm’ was replaced with ‘help.’
The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also help the environment.’
The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’
They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
They were then asked whether or not the chairman helped the environment intentionally.
These two conditions produced two radically different patterns of results — with most subjects (82%) in the harm condition saying that the agent acted intentionally, but relatively few subjects (23%) in the help condition saying that the agent acted intentionally.
The paper argues that this effect is best explained in terms of the role that moral considerations play in people’s concept of intentional action.