Take a look at these two scenarios quoted from work by the experimental philosopher Knobe, from a piece by Chris at Mixing Memory, and see whether you can figure out why people respond as they do:
Scenario 1: The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, 'We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.'
The chairman of the board answered, 'I don't care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let's start the new program.'
They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.
Scenario 2: The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, 'We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also help the environment.'
The chairman of the board answered, 'I don't care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let's start the new program.'
They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped.
Chris begins his comments thus:
Most participants who read the first scenario, the vast majority of participants say that the chairman intentionally harmed the environment (a morally bad outcome), whereas when they read the second scenario, very few participants say that the chairman intentionally helped the environment (a morally good outcome). Why is this? I haven't the slightest idea...
It's an interesting question about the ways people intuitively assign intention, and thus guilt. Clearly you lose points in life for indifference to harm, but get no points for doing good with indifference - as in doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or arriving at a correct answer despite faulty logic. The discussion here.
