Many people have asymmetrical judgments when it comes to the intentional choice of action of other individuals. Whether a person acts intentionally or not depends on the outcome of their actions. If harm results from a side effect of their immoral actions, then they are held responsible. At the same time, they are given no credit for positive results if it is simply a side effect caused by their actions. This discovery was made by cognitive scientist Joshua Knobe. Although a majority of the public agrees with these judgment intentions, I think that from a technical point of view it is more rational to have symmetry between judgments. A little less than ten years ago, Knobe did an experiment involving residents of a Manhattan neighborhood. park. To carry out the experiment, he separated the people into two groups. The first group of people were asked to read a short script about a president and a new program proposal. In this scenario, a vice president approaches the president of his company and tells him that he is considering 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 he doesn't care about the environment and only wants to make a profit. When the program is finally implemented, the president makes a lot of money, but the environment is also badly 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 instead of harmed. So the president still doesn't care about the environment, but when he implements the monetary game plan...... middle of paper ...... ng his body to throw the goods by- overboard, which is why some would consider the action intentional, he would not do it if there was no storm or danger, which is why it is not intentional. In my opinion, the same applies to the railway situation. In this given dilemma, the man must be pushed over the rails by another person, only because it is the sensible thing to do. If the dilemma did not exist, no rational person would push someone onto the train tracks. Arguably, the Knobe effect makes sense when considering morality, but this way of judging a person's intentions is flawed. If one person's actions are judged solely by what another person considers moral or immoral, there is no room for specific circumstances in which rational choices must be made. The other major problem is who gets to say what is moral and what is not..?