Many people have asymmetric judgments when it comes to the choice of intentional actions of other individuals. Whether a person acts intentionally or unintentionally depends on the outcome of his actions. If harm occurs as a side effect of their immoral actions, then they are held responsible. At the same time, they get no credit for positive outcomes if it is simply a side effect caused by their actions. This discovery was made by cognitive scientist Joshua Knobe. Although the majority of the public is consistent in judging intentions in this way, I believe that from a technical point of view having symmetry between judgments is more rational. Just under ten years ago, Knobe did an experiment involving people in a Manhattan city park. To carry out the experiment, he separated people into two groups. The first group of people was asked to read a short scenario about a president and a new program proposal. In this scenario, a vice president goes to the president of his company and says he's thinking about starting a new program. He says it will help them increase their profits, but the only downside is the harmful side effects the program will have on the environment. The President insists that he doesn't care about the environment and only wants to profit. When the program is finally implemented, the president earns a tidy sum of money, but the environment is also severely damaged. The second group of people were then asked to read the same passage, but the only difference in this version of the scenario was that the environment was helped, rather than harmed. So, the president still does not care about the environment, but when he implements the monetary plan ga...... middle of paper ......ng his body to throw the goods into the sea, which is why some would consider the action intentional, he wouldn't do it if there was no storm or danger, which is why it's not intentional. In my opinion the same thing applies to the train situation. In this dilemma, the man must be pushed onto the tracks by another person, just because it is the most sensible thing to do. If the dilemma didn't exist, no rational person would push someone onto train tracks. It can be said that the Knobe effect makes sense when considering morality, but this way of judging a person's intentions is flawed. If a person's actions are judged solely by what another person believes to be moral or immoral, there is no room for specific circumstances in which rational choices need to be made. The other big issue is who gets to say what is moral and what is not?