Comments on: Harming Intentionally, Helping Incidentally

By: Intuitions

Intuitions — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:30:07 +0000

[...] The experiment in question is this one. [...]

By: Robert Ellis

Robert Ellis — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:56:37 +0000

Or, instead of wasting money with ineffective, and circumventable regulation, we could just get rid of laws preventing those responsible from being held accountable for their actions. If a corporate officer new that he personally could be charged with murder and face the consequences for his decisions, he might be a bit more inclined to “make the right choice.” Don't you think? The excess of law is what's causing the injustice, not the cure.

By: Guurzak

Guurzak — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:37:14 +0000

The important question is not whether the environmental effects were intentional or unintentional. The important question is why so many people give different answers to the question of intent when nothing changes except outcomes. The definition of intentionality is boring; the *inconsistency* is interesting.

By: Juice

Juice — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:21:15 +0000

Neither action was intentional.

The guy explicitly said "I don't care about that. All I care about is the profit."

He didn't care one way or the other, so neither action can be considered intentional.

Why is this hard?

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:36:55 +0000

When the company president says, “I don't care about [the environment]” he doesn't seem to mean, “All nature offends me and I will do what I can to wipe it out,” but, “the environment is not a factor in this decision.” His intent is to maximize profit, and whatever happens to the environment will happen. It's clear to be that environmental effects were not the intent of the decision, so I don't think we can call those effects intentional in this case.

Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling.

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:33:26 +0000

Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling.

By: Morning Links | The Agitator

Morning Links | The Agitator — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:11:25 +0000

[...] Harming intentionally, helping incidentally. [...]

By: GilM

GilM — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:43:13 +0000

You don't have to make one.

You might only have to find one.

By: RobinHanson

RobinHanson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:45:07 +0000

So what, we all need to make a fun video to introduce our blogs now? The bar is raised!

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:57:55 +0000

This experiment says more about the respondents' assumptions regarding corporate intent than about the inherent morality of the profit motive.

Tangentially, last night I viewed the 1950 Kurosawa film Rashomon which subtly deconstructs the role worldview and preconceptions play in the perception and understanding of events and ultimately the very nature of truth. The title has been used to describe the clash between positivist and interpretivist assessments of contested events; The Rashomon Effect. (A relevant 2002 paper at the link.)

That said, I do agree that what are commonly referred to as externalities (incidental byproducts of economic activity) at present are not effectively integrated into the price structure of goods. For a thought provoking examination of an alternative pricing structure that seeks to address harmful environmental externalities, I recommend Natural Capitalism [www.natcap.org]. The basic premise is that externalities are like friction on a system, i.e., waste -- or lost profit potential. The goal is to utilize the profit motive to emulate natural systems' modus operendi -- Waste = Food -- within business and industry.

By: GilM

GilM — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:52:29 +0000

And, then, what do you think will motivate the regulators? When their activities produce negative externalities, do you expect them to risk their own budgets and power?

By: jason

jason — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:32:10 +0000

Awesome. It's Eugene Mirman.

By: Steve M.

Steve M. — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:26:41 +0000

And this helps me understand the relationship between intentions and culpability how?

By: adina

adina — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:59:49 +0000

I agree with muirgeo. But I don't consider low wages, lack of cozy independent stores, or increased consumption of unhealthy foods to be legitimate negative externalities. Carbon emissions, yes, although it's very difficult to quantify how much.

By: muirgeo

muirgeo — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:08:12 +0000

Yep that really helped me to understand the need to regulate companies. They do their job by maximizing the profit without regard for externalizes. When their externalities are negative and impose on those around hem then it's time to bring out the regulators.