Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 138, Issue 2, pp 291–298 | Cite as

The folk strike back; or, why you didn’t do it intentionally, though it was bad and you knew it

  • Mark T. PhelanEmail author
  • Hagop Sarkissian
Original Paper

Abstract

Recent and puzzling experimental results suggest that people’s judgments as to whether or not an action was performed intentionally are sensitive to moral considerations. In this paper, we outline these results and evaluate two accounts which purport to explain them. We then describe a recent experiment that allegedly vindicates one of these accounts and present our own findings to show that it fails to do so. Finally, we present additional data suggesting no such vindication could be in the offing and that, in fact, both accounts fail to explain the initial, puzzling results they were purported to explain.

Keywords

Experimental philosophy Action theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jesse Prinz and an anonymous reviewer for Philosophical Studies for their illuminating comments on previous drafts. We owe special thanks to Joshua Knobe, who offered essential help throughout the process of researching and writing this paper.

References

  1. Adams, F. (1986). Intention and intentional action: The simple view, Mind and Language 1, 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, F. (1997). Cognitive Trying. In G. Holmstron-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary Action Theory (pp. 287–314, vol 1). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, Reasons, and Causes. In The Essential Davidson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–36.Google Scholar
  4. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harman, G. (1976). Practical reasoning. Review of Metaphysics, 29, 431–463.Google Scholar
  6. Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Knobe, J. (2005). Theory of mind and moral cognition: Exploring the connections. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 357–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knobe, J., & Mendlow G. (2004). The good, the bad, and the blameworthy: Understanding the role of evaluative considerations in folk psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24, 252–258.Google Scholar
  10. Lowe, E. J. (1978). Neither intentional nor unintentional. Analysis, 38, 117–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCann, H. (1986). Rationality and the range of intention. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10, 191–211.Google Scholar
  12. Mele, A. R., & Sverdlik, S. (1996). Intention, intentional action, and moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 82, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nadelhoffer, T. (2004a). The butler problem revisited. Analysis, 64(3), 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nadelhoffer, T. (2004b). On praise, side effects, and folk ascriptions of intentionality. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nadelhoffer, T. (2004c). Blame, badness, and intentional action: A reply to Knobe and Mendlow. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24, 259–269.Google Scholar
  16. Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Desire, foresight, intentions, and intentional actions: Probing folk intuitions. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 24, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pitcher, G. (1970). In intending and side effects. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations