Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Moral Psychology
• Legal Psychology

Background:

• Recent studies suggest that an event's blameworthiness may influence judgments of intentionality.
• This challenges the traditional view that an agent's desire is a necessary condition for intentionality.
• Such perceptions raise concerns for legal assessments of intent.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether blameworthiness distorts intentionality judgments.
• To examine the role of agent desire in intentionality assessments.
• To determine if negative side effects are perceived as intentional due to blameworthiness.

Main Methods:

• Six experimental studies were conducted.
• Participants' intentionality judgments were recorded under varying conditions.
• Behavioral descriptions and agent desires were manipulated.

Main Results:

• Intentionality judgments were consistently guided by the agent's desire, irrespective of moral or nonmoral actions.
• Negative side effects were rarely deemed intentional when participants could select from multiple behavioral descriptions.
• A distinction was observed between 'knowingly' and 'intentionally' causing side effects, even in immoral contexts.

Conclusions:

• Intentionality judgments appear unaffected by an event's blameworthiness.
• Agent desire remains a primary factor in determining intentionality.
• The findings support traditional assumptions about intentionality and have implications for legal evaluations.