Experimental Philosophy Starring Eugene Mirman

To learn more about experimental philosophy, see http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jk762/ExperimentalPhilosophy.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• experimental philosophy
• ben coonley

[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?) ...

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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.