More In This Article
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
People sometimes feel that their ordinary way of making sense of the world is objective and impartial, but a growing body of research suggests that there might be more to the story. This research suggests that people's moral judgments can actually exert a surprising influence on their whole understanding of the world around them.
In one early study of this issue, I looked at the way people typically think about the "side effects" of human actions.
Imagine a scene in a corporate boardroom. The chairman is considering a new policy. He says: "I know that this policy will harm the environment, but I don't care at all about that. All I care about is making as much money as possible. So let's go ahead and do it." The company adopts the policy, and sure enough, the environment is harmed.
Now consider a seemingly straightforward question:
Did the chairman of the board harm the environment intentionally?
Versions of this question have been given to participants in literally hundreds of experiments, and in each case, the result has been the same. People tend to say that the answer is obviously yes. The chairman knew perfectly well that he was going to be harming the environment and decided to go ahead anyway. So clearly he did it intentionally.
But now suppose that we make just one minor change in our story. We will leave almost everything the same, but we will switch around the nature of the outcome. This time, instead of saying that the policy "harms" the environment, we will say that the policy "helps"the environment.
Let’s go through the story again in this new version. We are back to the corporate boardroom, but this time, the chairman’s speech is just a little bit different: "I know that this policy will help the environment, but I don't care at all about that. All I care about is making as much money as possible. So let's go ahead and do it." The company adopts the policy, and sure enough, the environment is helped.
Now consider the corresponding question:
Did the chairman of the board help the environment intentionally?
If you are like most participants in the experiments, your reaction to this second version is very different from your reaction to the first. Faced with this second version, most people say that the answer is obviously no. The chairman was not at all trying to help the environment; he just wanted to make money. So clearly he was not helping intentionally.
But notice that the two versions are almost exactly the same in every way. In both cases, the chairman knows he is going to be bringing about an effect. In both cases, he does not care at all. The only difference is whether the effect is something morally bad (harming) or something morally good (helping). So it looks like something very strange is happening here. People’s judgments about whether what the chairman did was good or bad are somehow influencing their judgments about whether he did it "intentionally" or "unintentionally."
Recent work in experimental philosophy has found this same sort of effect in numerous other areas. Moral judgments seem to influence judgments about whether a person "causes" something, whether a person "knows" something, whether a person is actually "doing" something or merely "allowing" it. But why is all of this happening? At this point, there are many conflicting hypotheses—and a whole series of intriguing experimental results—but no one really knows for sure.
Learn more about Knobe's work in his November 2011 Scientific American article: "Thought Experiments"
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentPractical Philosophy , as a therapeutic way of thinking, is today the single way of theaching people to understand themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I think is that digestion and degestive are the same as thougth and brain.
Thought/Mind , than, is simply the electroquimic resultant of Genetics and outside stimulus (morality, etc.etc.
Mathematically is difficult to do the work from effects to causes. Why not working together : neurosciences and philosophers in a real Lab?
Maria Teresa Barbosa
This is new?! Duh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch of our justice system is based on both foreseeability and intent.
I think that the question people are actually answering is, "Does this person have good intentions?" In both cases, the answer to this question is clearly "No." The environmental effects, good or bad, are side effects resulting from a negligent decision with the intention of personal gain. The question, "Did this person intentionally do something?" gets mangled because people see the morality behind the question, rather than the meaning verbatim, and respond with a moral judgement: "This person is immoral."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe words they then use to communicate their judgement depend on the phrasing of the question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Did this person intentionally do something bad?"
"This person is immoral. Immoral people intentionally do bad things. Yes."
"Did this person intentionally do something good?"
"This person is immoral. Immoral people do not intentionally do good things. No."
I think drparent has it right and this merely demonstrates sloppy thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Versions of this question have been given to participants in literally hundreds of experiments, and in each case, the result has been the same. People tend to say that the answer is obviously yes. The chairman knew perfectly well that he was going to be harming the environment and decided to go ahead anyway. So clearly he did it intentionally."
I find it depressing that the majority of people, who are not idiots, think so poorly.
I can't help but to wonder which order the questions were given to the participants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder whether the two questions are equivalent. Let's strip ethics out of the equation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the meeting the chairman goes to the pub with his friend. He tells him, that he has bought the cheapest paint, which he enjoys. The only snag is that the paint was red, so his house is now red, which he hates. On the question 'did he buy the red intentionally' I would say 'yes'... he could have bought another colour, but even though he hated the colour, he went ahead anyway.
Now change the story. The paint was blue, which he loves. On the question 'did he buy the blue intentionally' I would answer 'well, I don't know, probably No', since I don't know whether he would have changed his mind to buy the cheapest version, if the colour was a colour he hated.
So is it about morals, or is it about decision making?
The fact that everyone seems to be ignoring is that there are two consequences of this person's actions, the second being "making money". Making money is a good thing for the company, the board, the workers, the shareholders, and the economy in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, is this simply a moral judgement about the environment or a choice of moral judgements between making money and harming or helping the environment? I think that might skew the premise of the experiment.
I see a potential flaw.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople often use words to convey, not what the actual words mean, but a sentimental meaning.
In saying that he and the kids had a "grand day out, altogether" on the beach yesterday, my neighbour is not trying to suggest that the day was "grand", as in that it had more hours of sunlight, nor does the "altogether" refer to the family group, these are just words applied to infer a meaning other than the sum of their parts.
So when asked if the chairman did (X) intentionally, many are likely to see the word "intentionally" but exchange its meaning for that of "knowingly".
Mr. Knobe should take a few lessons in use of the English language; this article is terribly written.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this