Intentional action and "in order to".

Abstract

Joshua Knobe argues that psychological subjects regard an action as intentional if they are willing to use an "in order to" construction to explain the act, where the act in question appears on the right hand side of the construction. His research suggests that psychological subjects' moral views do affect whether they use the "in order to" construction in this way. Here I argue that subjects regard an action as intentional if they are also willing to place the act on the left hand side of an "in order to" construction. My research suggests that psychological subjects' moral views do not affect whether they use the "in order to" construction in this way.

Why side-effect outcomes do not affect intuitions about intentional actions: Properly shifting the focus from intentional outcomes back to intentional actions.

“…Although Anne's admission to Princeton did not seem intentional, it also did not seem unintentional, probably because participants assumed admission was her goal, and that she intentionally acted to increase the likelihood of fulfilling the goal. A similar result (i.e., ratings near the midpoint of an intentionality scale) often emerges when participants are given the harm version of the chairman vignette (see Pettit & Knobe, 2009;Wiland, 2007). This suggests the possibility of two usages of the word intentional: a strong version that directly references actions, and a weaker version that indirectly implicates the role of goal-directed actions in bringing about outcomes.…”

“…They also suggest that responses to questions of inten tionality index something more fundamental than which side of "in order to" the HH occurs (Wiland, 2007). That is, although we agree that phrasing of questions is important, what is most impor tant is providing participants with response options that properly identify goals, actions in pursuit of goals, and SE outcomes.…”

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (Wiland, 2007). Furthermore, although given the opportunity to label both starting the program and HH as intentional actions furthering the goal of increasing profits (Sample 3.2), only one participant selected this option.…”

“…Participants in both samples read either the help or the harm version of the chairman vignette, and selected one of the response options for two questions (Sample 3.1: intention and intentionally did; Sample 3.2: goal and intentional action). (Wiland, 2007). Furthermore, although given the opportunity to label both starting the program and HH as intentional actions furthering the goal of increasing profits (Sample 3.2), only one participant selected this option.…”

“…Without digressing to discuss this thorny issue, 4 we point out that this question even more emphatically treats HH as an action. Wiland (2007) argued that which side of the clause "in order to" the action appears is important. When HH was moved from the left to the right side of this clause (i.e., "The chairman started the program in order to HH the environment"), people's ratings indicated that it sounded quite wrong.…”