Abstract
A majority of people regard the harmful side-effects of an agent’s behavior as much more intentional than an agent’s helpful side-effects. In this paper, I present evidence for a related asymmetry. When a side-effect action is an instance of harming, folk ascriptions are significantly impacted by the relative badness of either an agent’s main goal or her side-effect action, but not her attitude. Yet when a side-effect action is an instance of helping, folk ascriptions are sensitive to an agent’s expressed attitude, but not to the relative goodness of her main goal or side-effect. It seems that the connection between harmful side-effects and intentionality is, for many, uniquely impervious to the expressed attitude of the agent in question.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In many Knobe-style studies, it is not clear whether the action in question is a side effect, or a means to the agent’s main goal. The distinction is important, since even though the asymmetry arises regarding means, folk tend to judge side effects less intentional than means (Cova and Naar forthcoming). Cova and Naar (forthcoming) argue that the difference between a side-effect and a means is that a means, but not a side-effect, is a necessary component of a causal explanation of an agent’s bringing about her main goal.
In addition to Guglielmo and Malle’s study, a study run by Steven Sverdlik (2004) suggests that agential attitude is a relevant factor in folk ascriptions of intentionality. However, in Sverdlik’s study, the moral valence of the action differed from the chairman’s, as did the agent’s attitude. So it is difficult to conclude whether agential attitude is independently driving his result.
Other cases suggest something similar. See, for example, Alessandro Lanteri’s (2009) trolley cases. In these cases, participants consider killing a stranger more intentional when it is a side-effect of pushing the stranger onto train tracks than when it is a side-effect of pulling a lever and re-directing a train. One problem with interpreting Lanteri’s result as an instance of the valence of the side-effect impacting folk ascriptions is that pushing the stranger is easily interpreted as a means to accomplishing the main goal (saving five people), rather than a side-effect.
Although, given the low number of respondents (N = 21), the study could stand to be replicated.
Of course, this is an empirical claim, and further tests would be required to see if I am right.
I gathered the evidence reviewed below by presenting vignettes to participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants saw only one case, and were not allowed to see more than one.
It is worth noting that Wible (2009) has obtained a similar result concerning the effect of the agent’s attitude in helping cases.
I should note that given Uttich and Lombrozo’s (2010) finding that conventional norms impact folk ascriptions, here I remain neutral about whether it is a moral norm’s moral status, or simply its status as a norm, that plays the key role.
It should be noted that Knobe’s account is meant to cover more than just intentional action—Knobe thinks that moral judgments constitute a basic part of folk psychological competence across a range of domains, including judgments of causation and mental state attribution more generally. Here I focus only on Knobe’s account of folk ascriptions of intentional action.
[Acknowledgements removed].
References
Apperly, I. 2011. Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind”. New York: Psychology Press.
Cova, F. and Naar, H. (forthcoming). Side-effect effect without side effects: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology.
Guglielmo, S., and B.F. Malle. 2010. Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 1635–1647.
Knobe, J. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–193.
Knobe, J. 2010. Person as scientist, person as moralist. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 315–329.
Knobe, J., and P. Pettit. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language 24(5): 586–604.
Lanteri, A. 2009. Judgments of intentionality and moral worth: Experimental challenges to Hindriks. The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 73–720.
Leslie, A., A. Cohen, and J. Knobe. 2006. Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: ‘Theory of mind’ and moral judgment. Psychological Science 17: 421–427.
Malle, B.F. 2006. The actor-observer asymmetry in causal attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132: 895–919.
Mele, A., and F. Cushman. 2007. Intentional action, folk judgments, and stories: Sorting things out. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 184–201.
Phelan, M., and H. Sarkissian. 2008. The folk strike back; or, why you didn’t do it intentionally, though it was bad and you knew it. Philosophical Studies 138: 291–298.
Phelan, M., and H. Sarkissian. 2009. Is the trade-off hypothesis worth trading for? Mind and Language 24(2): 164–180.
Sverdlik, S. 2004. Intentionality and moral judgments in commonsense thought about action. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 34: 224–236.
Uttich, K., and T. Lombrozo. 2010. Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition 116: 87–100.
Wible, A. 2009. Knobe, side effects, and the morally good business. Journal of Business Ethics, Supplement 1: 173–178.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Al Mele, Joshua Knobe, Adam Feltz, Mark Phelan, Christophe Heintz, the audience at the First Annual MERG X-phi workshop, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix. Vignettes Used in All Studies
Appendix. Vignettes Used in All Studies
1.1 Study One
1.1.1 Worse Valence, Worse Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came 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 answered, “I don’t care at all about harming the environment. However, I want to make as much profit as I can.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
1.1.2 Worse Valence, Better Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came 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 answered, “I feel terrible about harming the environment. However, I want to make as much profit as I can.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
1.1.3 Better Valence, Worse Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came to the Chairman of the Board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in a number of economically troubled cities, but it will also harm the environment.” The Chairman answered, “I don’t care at all about harming the environment. However, I want to create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in those troubled cities.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
1.1.4 Better Valence, Better Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came to the Chairman of the Board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in a number of economically troubled cities, but it will also harm the environment.” The Chairman answered, “I feel terrible about harming the environment. However, I want to create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in those troubled cities.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
1.2 Study Two
1.2.1 Worse Valence, Worse Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We’ve developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. However, if we actually do implement the project, it will poison the groundwater which services the neighborhoods in that district.” The city planner answered, “I don’t care at all about poisoning the groundwater. Addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and the groundwater was poisoned.
1.2.2 Worse Valence, Better Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We finally developed a plan to address our pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. However, if we actually do implement the project, it will poison the groundwater which services the neighborhoods in that district.” The city planner answered, “I feel terrible about poisoning the groundwater. But addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and the groundwater was poisoned.
1.2.3 Better Valence, Worse Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. However, if we actually do implement the project, it will increase the levels of joblessness.” The city planner answered, “I don’t care at all about increasing joblessness. Addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and joblessness levels increased.
1.2.4 Better Valence, Better Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. However, if we actually do implement the project, it will increase the levels of joblessness.” The city planner answered, “I feel terrible about increasing joblessness. But addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and joblessness levels increased.
1.3 Study Three
1.3.1 Worse Valence, Worse Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came 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 answered, “I don’t care at all about helping the environment. Ultimately, though, I want to make as much profit as I can.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
1.3.2 Worse Valence, Better Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came 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 answered, “That’s great news about helping the environment. Ultimately, though, I want to make as much profit as I can.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
1.3.3 Better Valence, Worse Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came to the Chairman of the Board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in a number of economically troubled cities. And it will also help the environment.” The Chairman answered, “I don’t care at all about helping the environment. Ultimately, though, I want to create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in those troubled cities.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
1.3.4 Better Valence, Better Attitude
Recently, the vice-president of a company came to the Chairman of the Board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in a number of economically troubled cities. And it will also help the environment.” The Chairman answered, “That’s great news about helping the environment. Ultimately, though, I want to create more jobs for the homeless and disadvantaged in those troubled cities.” They started the program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
1.4 Study Four
1.4.1 Worse Valence, Worse Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. Additionally, if we actually do implement the project, it will also decrease the levels of joblessness.” The city planner answered, “I don’t care at all about decreasing joblessness. Addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and joblessness levels decreased.
1.4.2 Worse Valence, Better Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. Additionally, if we actually do implement the project, it will also decrease the levels of joblessness.” The city planner answered, “That’s great news about decreasing joblessness. But addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and joblessness levels decreased.
1.4.3 Better Valence, Worse Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. Additionally, if we actually do implement the project, it will decrease cancer levels for those living near the area.” The city planner answered, “I don’t care at all about decreasing cancer levels. Addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and cancer levels decreased.
1.4.4 Better Valence, Better Attitude
The city planner’s assistant came to him and said, “We developed a plan to address the pollution problem. We have a new reclamation project that will clean up the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area. Additionally, if we actually do implement the project, it will decrease cancer levels for those living near the area.” The city planner answered, “That’s great news about decreasing cancer levels. But addressing the pollution problem is priority one. Let’s start the project.” They started the project. Sure enough, the toxic waste polluting the former industrial area was cleaned up, and cancer levels decreased.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shepherd, J. Action, Attitude, and the Knobe Effect: Another Asymmetry. Rev.Phil.Psych. 3, 171–185 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0079-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0079-7