The characteristic asymmetry in the attribution of intentionality in causing side
effects, known as the Knobe effect, is considered to be a stable model of
human cognition. This article looks at whether the way of thinking and
analysing one scenario may affect the other and whether the mutual
relationship between the ways in which both scenarios are analysed may affect
the stability of the Knobe effect. The theoretical analyses and empirical studies
performed are based on a distinction between moral and non-moral normativity
possibly affecting the judgments passed in both scenarios. Therefore, an
essential role in judgments about the intentionality of causing a side effect
could be played by normative competences responsible for distinguishing
between normative orders.