Has the side-effect effect been cancelled? (No, not yet.)

Author:

Sytsma Justin,Bishop Robert,Schwenkler John

Abstract

AbstractA large body of research has found that people judge bad foreseen side effects to be more intentional than good ones. While the standard interpretation of this Side-Effect Effect (SEE) takes it to show that the ordinary concept of intentionality is influenced by normative considerations, a competing account holds that it is the result of pragmatic pressure to express moral censure and, thus, that the SEE is an experimental artifact. Attempts to confirm this account have previously been unsuccessful, but Lindauer and Southwood (Am Philos Q 58(2):181–186, 2021) present a study that appears to provide support for it, by cancelling the SEE. We are not convinced. Here, we detail three studies testing their interpretation. The results indicate that it is the purported cancellation, rather than the SEE, that is an experimental artifact.

Funder

Victoria University of Wellington

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Social Sciences,Philosophy

Reference22 articles.

1. Adams, F., & Steadman, A. (2004). Intentional action in ordinary language: Core concept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis, 64(2), 173–181.

2. Adams, F., & Steadman, A. (2007). Folk concepts, surveys, and intentional action. In C. Lumer & S. Nannini (Eds.), Intentionality, deliberation, and autonomy: The action-theoretic basis of practical philosophy (pp. 17–33). Ashgate.

3. Cova, F. (2016). The folk concept of intentional action: Empirical approaches. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A companion to experimental philosophy (pp. 121–141). New York: Wiley.

4. Cova, F., & Naar, H. (2012). Side-effect effect without side effects: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology, 25, 837–854.

5. Cushman, F., & Mele, A. (2008). Intentional action: Two-and-a-half folk concepts? In J. Knobe & S. Nichols (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy (pp. 171–188). Oxford University Press.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3