Experimental Philosophy Starring Eugene Mirman

[ryan84160]

In both cases the consequences to the environment are merely a byproduct of maximizing profits.

[cunliffe5108]

its no to both, he only intended to make more money

[romanianskill]

it's really simple when you think about it but a little bit difficult to put into words.

[Yesiamblind]

Oh boy Yvgeny, I go with the third answer: "Vodka"

[ThusIsBrad]

Just read up on psychological writing from as early as 1958, the why of this scenario is discussed thoroughly in attribution theory, and more specifically "social desirability". For example, if the target performs a socially undesirable behavior, the observer almost always attributes it to the target's motives. Heider (1958) and Jones & Harris (1967)

[Mekonsprain]

This just segregates intention out of context. Lets try a similar but different example. A madman shoots a gun into a crowd. There's a 50/50 chance he'll hit someone with the bullet. He doesn't care if he does or not. If he hits someone does he intentionally harm them? Whether he intentionally harms them or not is a moot point. His crime is one of reckless disregard in fulfilling his own unethical desires, ergo to fire a gun into a crowd.

[Mike10four]

We are all Philosophers, from Greek means “love of wisdom.” Wisdom = knowledge + experience + virtue. Virtue is doing good relative to one’s reality. Knowledge is the objective for “truth,” a perpetual pursuit in time; the present maintains an emotional truth of the day; for in the past, there are side effects echoing throughout time, of what was once considered truth. See my channel video for the truth about our unalienable Rights, an exercise in “Experimental Philosophy.”

[kraker109]

It doesn't matter if it was intentional or unintentional he is still a twat

[vividDC]

If you are interested in philosophy, check this out. Search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says.  Pass it on to everyone you know.

[WYATTSHOW1]

There is no conflict, the disparity of opinion arises from the fact that the only form of free will is that of OUTCOME AVOIDANCE. If someone throws a rock, I can duck to avoid the rock, or avoid ducking the rock, but the rock is thrown and SOME outcome is sure. This experiment highlighted this interpretation of free will by the fact that the executive MAY AVOID harming the environment in both cases, but only in the case where profits are increased does he CHOOSE or INTEND to avoid said harm.

[koathegiff]

Good attempt, but a little flat.

[ThaddeusRobe]

Cat on the set! 2:17

[radd973]

isn't that the hitman from delocated

[GodlessPhilosopher]

Eugene Mirman!?!?

[bencassidy101]

This is bullshit. I'm all for applied philosophy so if this is just to get people interested then cool. If not it's just more bullshit and just likely to add fuel to the idea that Philosophy is just pointless theorising. There is no 'intent' involved, in both cases effects on the environment were irrelevant to decisions. Hence we hate the boss because, on either version, he only cares about his business. Easy.

[mrvanntastic]

@bencassidy101 the solution is easy make saving the environment profitable and people will be all over it, thats why we still have buffalo, Knowledge is power, ya!

[kangarc]

This ain't that difficult. The answer to both questions is NO. In neither case was the effect upon the environment intended. The only intent, as clearly stated by the company president, was to maximize profit.

If you ask whether he harmed/helped the environment KNOWINGLY, then the answer to both questions is YES.

Newsflash: Knowing something and intending it are two very different things.

[secretcountry]

right when he asked the second question i knew i fuked up..

[cycoboy817]

Lol I answered it was no to the first and yes to the second... I'm surprised people didn't notice the diffrence ...

[qqs764]

@cycoboy817 *sigh* It was no to both of them.

[RevelryGirl]

This is interesting. Love Eugene Mirman

[zee339]

i poop brown.

[pinkfloydicus]

blah blah long philosophical paragraph of epiphany i came up with while taking a shit

[electroscheme]

Eugene Mirman is a cool guy

[iacherman]

In the law, this level of mens rea, or mental state, would be called recklessly. That is with full knowledge that the effects would occur, and with the ability of stopping the act, but choosing to go on with the program regardless of the outcome. Intent is a broad spectrum, and the full spectrum of intent must be taken into account both when blaming as well as praising an entity for an act.

[glgamecoder]

i can't thumbs up this hard enough. Made me really think.

[UT0013]

I think what this tells us that when someone's behavior results in harm we want to determine if that person should be held responsible for the harm theyve caused (to determine wrongdoing or guilt,) but when someone's behavior is beneficial we want to know if it was their purpose to do good (to determine their sincerity, or good intentions.)

[broccolifan1]

@UT0013 good read Descartes

[UT0013]

"Did the executive cause X to the environment intentionally?" is not unambiguous. It can have a number of meanings.

One meaning is "Did the executive understand that X would be the result of his choice, and therefore he should be held responsible for X?"

The other meaning is "Was it the executive's aim or desire to cause X?

These are two very different questions. The first asks it the executive understood the consequences of his actions. The other asks what the executive's motives were.

[yoyo23man23]

lol morality

[flyktingjazz]

his intention was to make money. not harming or helping nature. so whats the deal. his intentions rides on a negative spectrum anyhow. no love in money.

[Kitt0000]

Decisions carry consequences, it doesn't matter if all you want is "just a coca cola" but then you commit a treacherous crime to get it. One cannot simply forsake ones liability in the name of foolish self interest.

[BryJolly927]

...and the second to, was helping the environment the reason for his decision?

[BryJolly927]

I think part of the problem with this experiment is that the question is framed strangely. If taken literally, his intentions are clearly to maximize profits in both cases, so people must do some interpreting, especially of what is meant by intentionally. When faced with ambiguity, people interpret the meaning of the question/statement based on context.

The first question is likely to be reformulated as, was he responsible for the harm (did he do it knowingly?) ...

[HonkIfYouLoveBeer]

@BryJolly927 That's exactly the point. People are using different standards of intent depending on the context, which is something that philosophers and legal scholars would not have predicted. People DO hold the harm guy more responsible than the help guy, even though the actual intent is identical.

[BrootalMetalBanjo]

@BryJolly927 The point is that whatever you answer, if you are honest it should be the same for both circumstances. What he shows is that we have a need to assign blame, while are more hesitant to give credit.

[ThusIsBrad]

@BrootalMetalBanjo We don't have a "need to assign blame" so much as an attribution tendency regarding the social desirability of an action. If the CEO wants to make profits and the environment is improved, this is globally positive and acceptable, the only hitch being he decided to declare that he doesn't care. Where the behavior outcome is in assenting to harm the environment, it is socially undesirable, and initiates more cognitive effort from the observer.

[Kaffekopable]

I'd say that him, harming/helping the environment was unintentional in both cases, as he picked profit over environment in both cases.

[CharlesFernando7]

lol a cat

[bearswilleatme]

by being informed about the effect before making his decision, he chose to condemn one thing in pursuit of the other.

[renumeratedfrog]

In both cases he says that he "doesn't care" about the environment, and that's a big clue that his intentions have nothing to do with it.

One possible explanation for the results is that people instinctively interpret "lack of caring" as "harming" in itself. And once you establish that he's harming the environment, it's only a small step to say that he's _intentionally_ harming it.

[XtraXtraodinaire]

was unintentional for both questions because the ceo was ignorant to the subject of "environment" in both cases

[badfish4311]

i got a whole other idea out of that video than you guys...

[sylvestermeow]

This is Utilitarian Philosophy, which was very popular in America until things got very complicated... remanants of this philosophy still remain, since there is an element of popular appeal in its fairly easy-to-understand concepts. peace

[fooshfoosh]

More like psychology, but yeah, interesting.

[susisonnen]

This is not a philosophical problem, but a language problem. The options are not covered by "help" and "harm", because there are several options in between, e.g. "not affect". If the people would use a more precise language, the seemingly contradictory outcome (with respect to moral) would not exist.

[fragmachine1]

That's not really true, if he said the project would make money but "not affect" the environment does he deserve credit for his companies low carbon footprint?

The question is the same.

[kraller22]

he intentionally chose both. he knew all the circumstances, he may be motivated by money for both but he still intentionally chose both.

[CreepNarrator]

I said no to both.... but I thought this was going to be funny

[daynightmedia]

Moly, you are dead on!

[molyneux1000]

Is experimental philosophy just another name for experimental psychology? Discuss

[samueleishion]

i don't think so.

i think they're looking at the experiments from different angles, looking for different things. like sociology and cultural anthropology...

[jaafarj]

I said "No" both times lol

[qwortor]

Ditto.

he said "i dont care" so intention was irrelavent.

[biiirrd]

whats the first song?

[bxjam85]

It was obvious to me that both hurting and helping the environment were unintentional consequences of the corporate executive wanting to maximize profit. Most people believed that the corporate executive intended on harming the environment because they thought with their emotions and not their logic.

[stepstvee]

touche

[fgrilli]

He hurts the environment intentionally because he says he's perfectly aware that the program would hurt it but he only cares about profit. His decision is immoral too, (e.g. from an utilitarian point of view) because it creates a financial advantage to a few people, while causing a serious damage to many more people, maybe even to himself, in which case he is stupid too. However, to say that I had to make some assumptions about awareness, intention, moral which not anybody would agree with :)

[bxjam85]

You're misconceiving the definition of intent. An intent is a chosen goal or purpose. The goal or purpose for the CEO was to make a profit, not to damage the environment. The damage caused to the environment was a by-product of the intended purpose. His awareness of the by-product does not make the by-product his goal or purpose.

[fgrilli]

Actually, I agree with your definition of intention. I think we come to two opposite conclusions because I am trying to assess the consequences of his decision from a moral point of view (of course, while trying to be logically consistent), while yours is a (seemingly) neutral logical analysis based on the definition of concepts (which nonetheless implies a moral judgement). I think that there are no easy and conclusive answers to such questions so we could go on forever arguing about it :)

[uglyguitarman]

A very interesting vid.

[bluesfan57]

If you don't care about harmful effects of your actions, it shows malice. If you don't care about beneficial effects of your actions, you don't deserve credit for the effects as it is the morally responsible thing to do anyway. Being morally responsible is expected, whereas being morally bankrupt is deplorable.

[amaconway]

this is hilarious that you guys are actually having a discussion over this.... it's to prove a point through sarcasim.

have a great day, you little philosophers, you!

[nocturnezero]

1. Eugene Mirman...? Why?

2. I think its because he didn't MIND that the first program was harming the environment. In the second one, he didn't CARE, and I think there's a significant difference there.

[JMfrac]

I think "Mind" and "Care" are synonamous and interchangeable words.

[nocturnezero]

Ironically, just today I was talking to my aunt, and she apologized for missing a performance of mine. I replied that I didn't care. She responded with "I'll see your diss and raise you two fuck yous." But the point is that if I'd said I didn't mind, it would be different.

[realogist]

Hmm, this an interesting point to consider. This is a complicated matter surrounding intentions, responsibility, and in-directness of action.

His intentions are clearly stated: to maximize profits. However, he also is clearly aware of the indirect consequences of his intentions: the harming or helping of the environment.

So although he has no intentions toward the environemnt, he must still be held accountable for it, since he willingly knew the indirect results of it, helping or harming

[Mashypotato]

It's because we have a prejudice to see corporate executives as immoral people.

[JMfrac]

This is because the machavellian concept of Amorality is beyond most people's comprehension.

[lokeydaniel]

You commies love that "maximizing profit"

[silverskid]

Of course neither blame nor praise are appropriate to side-effects like this. But to the extent that people hold others accountable for acts (side-effects or not) blame may come with more ease than praise to many.

[silverskid]

Interesting experiment. Revealing to. Perhaps many of us are quicker to blame than to praise. It could be the wording in part, as some comments here suggest. But I still think it has to do with the blame/ praise issue.

[RamshackleBenben]

One hundred thousand penises.

[jerryhatesjerry]

The asymmetry is no surprise. In everyday talk, we use "That was intentional" as an indictment and "That wasn't intentional" as an exculpation. The words "intentional" and "unintentional" has simply taken on these connotations.

[jerryhatesjerry]

Well, the executive is morally required to keep harmful side-effects in mind when carrying out his plan. He is not morally required to keep beneficial side effects in mind when carry out his plan. A side-effect of an action is intentional if it is something we are morally required to keep in mind. (This is different from a side-effect being merely foreseeable).

PS - You guys should include suggestions for further reading in the form of freely available pdfs! Nice work, though.

[HerrMannelig]

this guy's on flight of the chonchords

[terminaldeity]

Either both are intentional or unintentional. I suggest the latter. The result is irrelevant to the intention, and responsibility must be assumed regardless.

[mandudepersondudeman]

i like how they did this since it makes you actually think about the situation, i answered that he intentionally harmed the environment yet didn't intantionally help the environment, the reason for my decision was because if a negative side effect was going to occur due to whatever yet still decided to go with the plan, he is then responsible, but if it turned out to help but he didn't care, it would have just been a side effect and not intentionally as it would then not even matter.

[jokingmearound1]

I think the principal reason somebody showed this wasn't about either way if he ignored the harm he could cause, or if he did care to help the environment. The thing is we've got to notice we've got to make something to make sure the "boss" cares about the environment philosophy. And it involves we've got to make procedure up to that, it's like a moquery of our govournment system.

[jokingmearound1]

It's also to mock our society for self-greed, but... it's got his place. I feel self-greed is something important. We can't live for other, nevertheless pity them all the time, because sometimes, it involves problem. Like in this case, a boss by starting a compagny creates employment. It's true he's totally a "supposed self-fish" man, and i don't encourage this neither ... sometimes we have to make decisions that goes again'st the natural way to think for our own good and others good too.

[dzyns]

the boss is an idiot either way. . .

but both statements are not the same. . .ignoring but allowing potential harm is infinitely worse than ignoring but allowing potential good.

oh man that baby in the middle of the road is about to be run over by a truck "oh $5 on the ground". . .

or "oh $5 on the ground."as I bent over I stopped the baby carriage from rolling into the street and being flattened by the truck. . .

anyway. . .seems to me to real villain turns out to be the VP.

[tunjin]

read the question again - no word about good/bad there

[CrimsonPhantom88]

Huh. Thought provoking. Also, interesting where Eugene Mirman will pop up.

[kathlacy]

There is a difference between intent and culpability.

[The80sKickAss]

The question is did he Harm/Help the environment INTENTIONALLY...Did he intend to help or harm the environment? No to both, he did not care either way what happened to the environment the only thing he intended was to help his profits. Pick up a dictionary people, this isn't a philosophical question it's an "are you literate" question.

[tr1ptan]

In a legal sense, intent refers to both the desired outcome and all other possible outcomes.

Most arguments in a court relating to intent are based around showing if a defendant was aware of the possible outcome(s).

But in this case, the executive was not only aware, but was 100% sure that his actions would lead to helping or harming the environment.

Therefore, his intent was such.

[carlo88moe]

i thought something similar as well,

i mean there isnt really a moral difference is the president's creed, he chooses apathy, environmentally apathetic, in both responses.

so, it seems to me where people have a huge discrepency is with the basic function of a corporate-free market.

and this difference is anwsers looks to stem from that confusion of intent with function.

sorry if im not lucid

it is, after all, a goddamn comment box on utube

[friendlynihilist]

the answer for both should have been: (yes but not directly). and therefore the basic yes or no choices were both equally inaccurate answers. and because of that we used our own required response to decide our answer.

when the environment is harmed its dangerous for us an so requires action. answering yes facilitated us taking that action against his indirectly causing the harm. whereas when the enviro is helped it requires no action, and so by answering no it facilitated us taking no action.

[felguerez]

Screw Plato and Kant, real philosophers just write youtube comments.

[jokingmearound1]

Kant just gotta be the best philosoph ever. Kant's philosophy show's how much important it is to treat other the way you'd treat yourself. That philosphie gotta be one that is missing to a lot of peoples on the current era... Guns, sex, even with amusement (Video games) we work with gunz we tranpose ourselves in character because he's virtual. We could have lot of funs in video games, except with killing. Maybe less in paintball tought if anybody played, you'd feel it is more a sport for skill.

[cycoboy817]

@felguerez Like you?

[Zaphenath4]

@felguerez Without Plato and Kant, you would have less intelligent comments to write on youtube. Think about it.

[koathegiff]

@Zaphenath4 I DISAGREE!!

[babblestorm]

They were both intentional, because either way, he knew it was compulsory to harm or help the environment that follows onto getting to the desired outcome.

An intention is doing something to get to an outcome.

[drawe]

If it was changed to I don't care about the environment and who cares about the profits.. Or, I care about the environment and profits. Is this really philosophy or marketing or simply damage control? So if the profits are used for environmental improvements for another project not connected to it what happens?

[mikerpiker]

"ethics? maybe. philosophy? no. "

fail.

[helloW0RLD3000]

u nigises are crazy. please do someting on proust cause he is the man with the big nuts. aristotle is also the best. maybe even bigger nuts.

[GraphicalRabbit]

I find this rediculous, for both cases he knew the consequences of going ahead with the program but Eugene emphasises that people put responsibility on the exec for damging the environment and not for helping it. Just because he didn't care about the environment doesn't stop the fact that the executive knew about the effects the project would have. It seems to me as long as one is concious of the double-effect of an action such as this, they accept an intend for both outcomes will come about.

[habibe3]

A good question for the philosophically inclined, but, alas, I still don't see why philosopher's should take this sort of experimental data seriously.

Is it supposed to play surrogate for generic "intuition"? If so, don't we have more reason to just think they are confused, expressing a jumbled mess of intentional and moral concepts, like any other little considered opinion?

Still waiting for someone to highlight the extra-psychological point.

[turbotape]

I'd say this should have important consequences for how people judge other people's actions. People's abilities to judge are often too clouded by feelings, to be called rational.

[crussher2]

I said 'no' to both.

In both cases, it was never his intention to harm/help the environment, his intention was to maximize profits. That the environment was harmed/helped was an incidental and not intentional factor.

[PantsRocket]

Although I was expecting a funny sketch, I still enjoyed the video.

[iheartshit]

eugene mirman, what are you doing here?

[StarvingForTruth]

neg me all you want folks - it's a stupid question, and you're stupid for not seeing it.

[commanderetardo]

the negative consequences are viewed as intentional because there is an immediate value for people to be made aware of the harm they cause. we are less concerned about highlighting the causal connection when the consequences are positive because there is no danger posed by them.

[davidgrantsinclair]

lame.

this "experiment" poses a false choice in a vacuum. its like porno for game theorists.

this president's disregard for consequence is intentional, so any consequence is a part of his intention.

ethics? maybe. philosophy? no.

[McConsumer]

ridiculous question. It's never that simplistic. Wht exactly is the purpose of this experiment? Sounds more like a social science; measuring popular opinion, than really relating to philosophy

[StarvingForTruth]

It's a stupid question. No matter the answer, it shouldn't be done or allowed (harming the environment).

Duh.

[BlakeTahoe]

both the answers are No, the boss didnt have any intention of ruining or helping the enviroment he just wanted the money, be it even if he hurt or helped it he didnt do either intentionally(at least thats what i think)

[SmashBloc]

I think both answers are yes. His intention was to follow the new plan which maximizes profit AND harms/helps the environment. So he intended to maximize profits while harming/helping the environment even though he didn't care about harming/helping the environment. If he didn't intend to harm/help the environment he made a mistake when he decided to follow the new plan. I think since he knew it would harm/help the environment he is morally responsible for the consequences.

[iheartshit]

but the question is was it done intentionally not just knowingly, and is there a difference. he didn't really act with the intention of effecting the environment. i think you're working backward from an intuition that he's morally responsible, but you can be morally responsible for something for reasons other than having acted intentionally to achieve it, e.g. moral responsibility due to negligence, like if i cause a train wreck because i'm texting on my phone. (i agree with blaketahoe)

[SmashBloc]

In your example, you would be morally responsible FOR the negligence that CAUSED the accident (the texting), you still aren't morally responsible for the accident itself (the train wreck). I don't think you can intend to do something unknowingly, so knowledge and intention are connected. So, I disagree because, the boss knew about everything in the plans so he intended and was morally responsible for the outcomes, and the plans directly caused the outcomes.

[sheerterror77]

Perhaps it works that way because most people are dipshits. That's my philosophy.

[evespikey]

very dramatic. Cute polar bears always help a video.

[entitlement]

A great blog ad.

[dclnm]

sounds more like psychology to me

[h0b0licious]

I agree. Have you read Kahnneman?

[dclnm]

Not sure. I read a good few papers on psychology of perception but I can't remember anything related to this sort of experiment. Does he cover this area?

[subinev]

konst could just sit there and not say anything and he would still make me crack up. amazing.