This paper focuses on Joshua Knobe's experiments which show that people attribute blame and intentionality to the chairman of a company that knowingly causes harmful side effects, but do not attribute praise and intentionality to the chairman of a company that knowingly causes helpful side effects. Knobe's explanation of this data is that people determine intentionality based on the moral consideration of whether the side effect is good or bad. This observation and explanation has come to be known as the (...) "Knobe Effect." One implication from the Knobe Effect is that it seems profit-driven businesses can only intentionally cause harmful and never good side effects. This paper examines the Knobe Effect, and argues for a way that business persons can understand it and avoid its implications. The argument has three parts. The first point is that business persons who care only about profits are blameworthy and rightly should not get credit for good side effects. Second, when a morally praiseworthy person who cares about values other than profits causes side effects, her actions are intentional and praiseworthy. Therefore, profit-driven business persons can be praised for intentionally producing good side effects if they consider other moral values as moral agents should. Finally, morally praiseworthy business persons need only to be Minimally Good Samaritans and not totally altruistic. When a business person strives for profits, adheres to other morally important values, and produces morally good side effects, then we should say that she intentionally caused those effects and is praiseworthy. (shrink)

The book is a collection of the presentations of the Society for Lesbian and Gay Philosophy from 1998 to 2008. The essays are organized historically, starting in 1998. Their topics cover virtually every philosophical field, and such that each is connected to gay and lesbian studies. Topics include how we are to understand sexual orientation, whether same-sex leads to polygamy, teaching gay studies to undergraduates, promiscuity and virtue, the "war on terror" and gay oppression, the rationality of coming out, the (...) ethics of outing, connections between being gay and being happy, and last, but not least, dignity and being gay. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called the inflation of conflict (IC). A form of IC is a type of hasty generalization. A wider view of how things stand outside the courtroom may reveal little real disagreement among experts. Conventions in the popular press that promote “both sides of the story” or constant debate formats seem to encourage this type of IC. Another form of IC correctly points to disagreement in a field but incorrectly (...) implies that, as a result, little can be known. Noting disagreement among authorities can be the basis of a good argument. When there is widespread disagreement on the core aspects of a topic and the participants are bona fide authorities, then there is a good reason for a non‐expert to suspend judgment on the issue. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'kettle logic' (KL). KL is a fallacy in which multiple contradictory premises are presented to support a point. As such, it is logically impossible for all of the premises to be true. Formally, KL arguments are valid arguments, for it is impossible for contradictory premises to be true and the conclusion false. Sigmund Freud believes KL is employed in dreams quite often. Contradictory beliefs are commonly offered, which give (...) notice that one is in a dream. Freud's presentation of the tea kettle argument makes it clear that the man presents all of the premises as true. In real life and even in dreams, determining whether the arguer intends for all the considerations to be true, or whether additional information is missing, is much more difficult, but necessary in order to avoid the fallacy. (shrink)

Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, and there is growing consensus that medical errors should be discussed after they occur. This essay argues that potential errors should be discussed with patients as well in the informed consent process prior to treatment. While physicians don’t have the obligation to tell patients to go to physicians and hospitals that would present less potential for error, patients should be told of increased risks compared to other options, (...) and be guided through the data on physician and hospital rankings. Suggestions are given to improve this informed consent process. (shrink)

Discussion of marketing deception has mostly focused on two main areas: first are cases that involve the intentional deception of people who tend to have compromised intelligence, such as children or the elderly, and second are cases that involve intentional falsehoods or the withholding of vital information, such as Madoff’s exploits. This article will differ from most in the field by examining marketing practices that are generally truthful, but deceive almost everyone. These practices do not fool just small select groups, (...) but are fooling those usually assumed to be rational. For example, we love “free” merchandise so much that we are willing to irrationally settle for less to get the free product. Behavioral economists and psychologists are proving that, as Dan Ariely puts it, most all of us are “Predictably Irrational.” Is it wrong for marketers to take advantage of the mass’s foibles as it is wrong to take advantage of children? The article will look at some of the behavioral economists’ data, how that data affects the rational and ignorant person standards of marketing, and suggest the reflective rational person standard as a way to morally evaluate marketing techniques given this new data. (shrink)