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

Justin Sytsma, Robert Bishop, John Schwenkler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

A 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number395
JournalSynthese
Volume200
Issue number5
Early online dateSep 15 2022
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Experimental philosophy
  • Intentionality
  • Knobe effect
  • Pragmatics
  • Side-effect effect

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • General Social Sciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Has the side-effect effect been cancelled? (No, not yet.)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this