Experimental Philosophy Starring Eugene Mirman

Back


Comedian Eugene Mirman explaining a famous study from the new 'experimental philosophy' movement

Channel: Education
Uploaded: November 8, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Author: xphilosophy

Length: 00:02:53
Rating: 4.92
Views: 8565

Tags: experimental philosophy eugene mirman konst ben coonley

Video Comments:
crussher2 (December 29, 2008 at 11:45 am)
I said 'no' to both.
In both cases, it was never his intention to harm/help the environment, his intention was to maximize profits. That the environment was harmed/helped was an incidental and not intentional factor.
PantsRocket (December 25, 2008 at 2:02 am)
Although I was expecting a funny sketch, I still enjoyed the video.
iheartshit (December 22, 2008 at 10:59 am)
eugene mirman, what are you doing here?
StarvingForTruth (November 29, 2008 at 12:49 am)
neg me all you want folks - it's a stupid question, and you're stupid for not seeing it.
commanderetardo (November 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm)
the negative consequences are viewed as intentional because there is an immediate value for people to be made aware of the harm they cause. we are less concerned about highlighting the causal connection when the consequences are positive because there is no danger posed by them.
davidgrantsinclair (November 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm)
lame.

this "experiment" poses a false choice in a vacuum. its like porno for game theorists.

this president's disregard for consequence is intentional, so any consequence is a part of his intention.

ethics? maybe. philosophy? no.
SmashBloc (November 26, 2008 at 10:14 am)
I think both answers are yes. His intention was to follow the new plan which maximizes profit AND harms/helps the environment. So he intended to maximize profits while harming/helping the environment even though he didn't care about harming/helping the environment. If he didn't intend to harm/help the environment he made a mistake when he decided to follow the new plan. I think since he knew it would harm/help the environment he is morally responsible for the consequences.
iheartshit (December 22, 2008 at 11:07 am)
but the question is was it done intentionally not just knowingly, and is there a difference. he didn't really act with the intention of effecting the environment. i think you're working backward from an intuition that he's morally responsible, but you can be morally responsible for something for reasons other than having acted intentionally to achieve it, e.g. moral responsibility due to negligence, like if i cause a train wreck because i'm texting on my phone. (i agree with blaketahoe)
SmashBloc (December 22, 2008 at 12:30 pm)
In your example, you would be morally responsible FOR the negligence that CAUSED the accident (the texting), you still aren't morally responsible for the accident itself (the train wreck). I don't think you can intend to do something unknowingly, so knowledge and intention are connected. So, I disagree because, the boss knew about everything in the plans so he intended and was morally responsible for the outcomes, and the plans directly caused the outcomes.
McConsumer (November 26, 2008 at 8:06 am)
ridiculous question. It's never that simplistic. Wht exactly is the purpose of this experiment? Sounds more like a social science; measuring popular opinion, than really relating to philosophy