Experimental Philosophy Starring Eugene Mirman

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

More like psychology, but yeah, interesting.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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 :)

touche

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...

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