Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 171–185 | Cite as

Action, Attitude, and the Knobe Effect: Another Asymmetry

Article

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.

References

  1. Apperly, I. 2011. Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind”. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cova, F. and Naar, H. (forthcoming). Side-effect effect without side effects: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Knobe, J. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Knobe, J. 2010. Person as scientist, person as moralist. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Knobe, J., and P. Pettit. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language 24(5): 586–604.Google Scholar
  7. Lanteri, A. 2009. Judgments of intentionality and moral worth: Experimental challenges to Hindriks. The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 73–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malle, B.F. 2006. The actor-observer asymmetry in causal attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132: 895–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mele, A., and F. Cushman. 2007. Intentional action, folk judgments, and stories: Sorting things out. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phelan, M., and H. Sarkissian. 2009. Is the trade-off hypothesis worth trading for? Mind and Language 24(2): 164–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sverdlik, S. 2004. Intentionality and moral judgments in commonsense thought about action. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 34: 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Uttich, K., and T. Lombrozo. 2010. Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition 116: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wible, A. 2009. Knobe, side effects, and the morally good business. Journal of Business Ethics, Supplement 1: 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations