Is the 'trade-off hypothesis' worth trading for?

Mind and Language 24 (2):164-180 (2009)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Abstract: Recently, the experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe has shown that the folk are more inclined to describe side effects as intentional actions when they bring about bad results. Edouard Machery has offered an intriguing new explanation of Knobe's work—the 'trade-off hypothesis'—which denies that moral considerations explain folk applications of the concept of intentional action. We critique Machery's hypothesis and offer empirical evidence against it. We also evaluate the current state of the debate concerning the concept of intentionality, and argue that, given the number of variables at play, any parsimonious account of the relevant data is implausible.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
PHEITT
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-03-01
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Folk Moral Relativism.Sarkissian, Hagop; Park, John; Tien, David; Wright, Jennifer & Knobe, Joshua
Experimental Philosophy.Knobe, Joshua; Buckwalter, Wesley; Nichols, Shaun; Robbins, Philip; Sarkissian, Hagop & Sommers, Tamler
The Pervasive Impact of Moral Judgment.Pettit, Dean & Knobe, Joshua
Experimental Moral Philosophy.Alfano, Mark; Loeb, Don & Plakias, Alex

View all 30 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-03-31

Total views
108 ( #26,505 of 43,688 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #33,815 of 43,688 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.