The article by Joshua Knobe explores the concept of intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Knobe presents a scenario where a company chairman implements a program with the primary goal of increasing profits, despite not caring about an unintended environmental impact. The question is whether this environmental impact was intentionally brought about by the chairman. This issue is central to a debate between Alfred Mele and Michael Bratman, who differ on whether side effects can be considered intentional. Knobe's research involves two experiments. In the first, subjects were asked to judge the chairman's intentions and blame for harm to the environment, depending on whether the program was described as harmful or helpful. The results showed that most subjects (82% in the harm condition, 77% in the help condition) believed the chairman intentionally caused the side effect, depending on its nature. In the second experiment, the setting was changed to a military context, with similar results. Knobe concludes that people are more likely to blame an agent for bad side effects than to praise them for good side effects, suggesting an asymmetry in how they apply the concept of intentionality. This asymmetry may explain why people are more willing to say that a side effect was intentionally caused when it is considered bad rather than good.The article by Joshua Knobe explores the concept of intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Knobe presents a scenario where a company chairman implements a program with the primary goal of increasing profits, despite not caring about an unintended environmental impact. The question is whether this environmental impact was intentionally brought about by the chairman. This issue is central to a debate between Alfred Mele and Michael Bratman, who differ on whether side effects can be considered intentional. Knobe's research involves two experiments. In the first, subjects were asked to judge the chairman's intentions and blame for harm to the environment, depending on whether the program was described as harmful or helpful. The results showed that most subjects (82% in the harm condition, 77% in the help condition) believed the chairman intentionally caused the side effect, depending on its nature. In the second experiment, the setting was changed to a military context, with similar results. Knobe concludes that people are more likely to blame an agent for bad side effects than to praise them for good side effects, suggesting an asymmetry in how they apply the concept of intentionality. This asymmetry may explain why people are more willing to say that a side effect was intentionally caused when it is considered bad rather than good.