Explanations of the Knobe Effect in the Context of a Conflict of Norms

Abstract

In a famous study, Joshua Knobe (2003) found an asymmetry in the way people ascribe intentional action. We discuss two explanations of this phenomenon: a psychological one formulated by Knobe himself and the so-called Omissions Account proposed by Katarzyna Paprzycka (2016a), and then describe an empirical study we have conducted into lay judgments of the intentionality of actions performed by agents facing a conflict of norms. While neither account in its present form explains our data, we argue that a modification of Paprzycka’s solution has the conceptual resources to deal with them. By contrast, a similar modification of Knobe’s proposal is highly implausible.