A philosophical question of intent?

- Yes to both. Both the profit and the environmental effects were presented to the CEO, and he chose both effects. That one was more motivating than the other is irrelevant.

Look at it this way. I hand you a gun, which you would like to shoot because you like the "bang". I say "Yeah, you can shoot it, but it will kill someone". If you shoot it to hear the bang, you will have intentionally killed that person.

According to basic legal theory there are essentially two types of intent: (1) an act carried out to effect a particular result, and (2) an act carried out with substantial certainty that a particular result will happen. While the CEO did not desire to harm or benefit the environment, the CEO was substantially certain that his/her decision would substantially harm/benefit the environment. Thus in scenario #1 it can be said that the CEO intentionally harmed the environment, and in #2 the CEO intentionally benefited it.

However, that is not the point. By posing the question this way, the author invites the reader to ask the deeper ethical question: does the CEO, or any person, have an ethical duty to consider the environment when making a decision that will further his own well-being?

I would say yes, always. Others would say no, never. Still others would say depends on the circumstance. What would you say?

To answer both questions: Yes, it was intentional.

The reason why is that the obligation to make money is a matter of business ethics, and so for the CEO to state that they want to make money is moot. That's their ethical obligation to a company, regardless of what the results are. The CEO is in no way responsible for the intent of their company; the company exists purely for the purpose of generating profit. Therefore, the ways in which the profit are made, and the costs and benefits of those ways in which profit are made can only be the result of moral decisions by an individual.

If the CEO says 'No, let's not make this product because it harms the environment', then that would be a moral decision in conflict with the ethic of the business, and a clear case of their intent to act against the interest of the company. Even the decision NOT to contemplate one's moral decisions is in itself a moral decision. It's inescapable. Good intentions are not borne of ignorance, but deliberation and consideration. A willful ignorance is a moral position that moral considerations are unimportant. Hence, a moral judgment, acted upon with intent.

If you tell someone a lie, that's a matter of intent. But to simply not tell someone the whole truth (when you are aware of it) is also a matter of intent. Therefore, as soon as the CEO knows what the result of the product will be, he cannot help but intentionally disregard the information or act upon it.

The paradoxical part of all this is that the CEO can act with intent without caring what the result of his intentions are. We all do this to some degree, of course. There are starving people somewhere in the world that you and I could help, but we are not helping them because we put certain other intentions in priority. It's inescapable that we cannot act upon everything we know, and hence we intentionally determine our acts at the exclusion of other possible acts. I'd say it;s a 'weak intentionality' (rather than a 'strong one' --- like, 'I want a cup of tea; therefore I will boil water, put tea in a teapot', etc.).

We can also show that the CEO's action was intentional because of what he knew by supposing the Head of Development never told him about the environmental effects of the product. In such a case, if the product damaged the environment, the CEO could honestly say that since he never knew the potential results, he never intended for that to happen. So... yes, I'd say there's a weak intention there, superceded by the strong intention of maintaining a corporate ethic.

Hope that helps.

Good question, but the primary responsibility / motivation of any CEO should be to make money, reasons not withstanding. The question has merit on it's own without the carrot of increased revenues.

In economics / decision theory, this is called an externalize. Some factor which may have little to no bearing on a private interest but which may be detrimental to a larger group or a society.

You see this alot around the discussion of the "tragedy of the commons" - which stems from the notion of some shared "common" ground among several farmers. The while good irrigation and maintenance of the shared property is in the interest of all, it is in the interest of the individual farmer to maximize the yield from the particular farm, so farming but not deep tilling or fertilizing benefits the farmer (as these are additional costs presumably), and if that harms the common interest so be it.

The common solution to the "tragedy" of the commons is to impose a fee or similar to provide for the upkeep and other presumed costs to maintain the commons in return for access to it.

More broadly one sees this kind of thing in many different areas, and I think ultimately intent DOES matter, and so - returning to your example, yes the CEO does harm or hurt the environment depending on the circumstance. But should the CEO consider externalities, good PR versus bad PR.

BP spent nearly a decade green-washing their reputation, and one massive oil spill later, it's clear that the costs, simply on a public-relations perspective, make whatever stringent self-regulations and/or maintenance and policy decisions seem trivially obvious.

Most companies operate in this fashion.

The fundamental difference between the two scenarios ("harm" and "benefit") are what will guide each answer.

At the root is the CEO's foreknowledge of harm and or benefit. When the head of development highlighted environmental issues to the CEO...the CEO lost plausible deniability as to whether he/she knew of said product's impact.

The CEO definitely knowingly harmed the environment in scenario 1 and knowingly helped the environment in scenario 2. The fact that success and profit were the primary goals does not alter this truth.

The question then turns to...(in order to find your answer)...is there a difference between "knowingly" and "intentionally"? In this case...and most others...I would say the difference between the two terms is very, very small.

My interpretation is yes and yes.

In scenario 1 the CEO is saying, "damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!"

In 2, he sees no torpedoes.

But in both cases his "intent" is "full speed ahead", so no, he did not "intentionally" harm the environment, but he could be guilty of harming it, if a given law says that he must take the environment into consideration.

You make a good point. But the subtlety is that there is an expectation that we not cause damage to the environment, but there is no expectation that we do benefit to it. Therefore indifference to damage occurring by us or our organization is a culpable negligence, but failing to do something good is not. So it is the same indifference, but in one direction it's negligence and in the other it is not.