Is the 'trade-off hypothesis' worth trading for?

Mind and Language 24 (2):164-180 (2009)
Authors
Hagop Sarkissian
Baruch College (CUNY)
Mark Phelan
Lawrence University
Abstract
Abstract: Recently, the experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe has shown that the folk are more inclined to describe side effects as intentional actions when they bring about bad results. Edouard Machery has offered an intriguing new explanation of Knobe's work—the 'trade-off hypothesis'—which denies that moral considerations explain folk applications of the concept of intentional action. We critique Machery's hypothesis and offer empirical evidence against it. We also evaluate the current state of the debate concerning the concept of intentionality, and argue that, given the number of variables at play, any parsimonious account of the relevant data is implausible.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01358.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 37,153
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Pervasive Impact of Moral Judgment.Dean Pettit & Joshua Knobe - 2009 - Mind and Language 24 (5):586-604.
On Doing Things Intentionally.Pierre Jacob, Cova Florian & Dupoux Emmanuel - 2012 - Mind and Language 27 (4):378-409.

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-03-31

Total downloads
79 ( #85,100 of 2,308,759 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #291,534 of 2,308,759 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature