Intentional Side-Effects of Action*
Certain recent experiments are often taken to show that people are far more likely to classify a foreseen side-effect of an action as intentional when that side-effect has some negative normative valence. While there is some disagreement over the details, there is broad consensus among experimental...
| VerfasserInnen: | ; |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2013
|
| In: |
Journal of moral philosophy
Jahr: 2013, Band: 10, Heft: 2, Seiten: 179-203 |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Experimental philosophy
B Joshua Knobe B Side-effects B Intentional action B Moral Psychology |
| Online-Zugang: |
Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Zusammenfassung: | Certain recent experiments are often taken to show that people are far more likely to classify a foreseen side-effect of an action as intentional when that side-effect has some negative normative valence. While there is some disagreement over the details, there is broad consensus among experimental philosophers that this is the finding. We challenge this consensus by presenting an alternative interpretation of the experiments, according to which they show that a side-effect is classified as intentional only if the agent considered its relative importance when deciding on the action. We present two new experiments whose results can be explained by our hypothesis but not by any version of the consensus view. In the course of doing so, we develop a methodological critique of the previous literature on this topic and draw from it lessons for future experimental philosophy research. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5243 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Journal of moral philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/17455243-4681004 |
