In this study, we examined the status of side-effects — effects that the agent foresaw but wasn't specifically trying to bring about.
A key question in the existing literature on the concept of intentional action is whether or not people consider side-effects to have been brought about intentionally.
the answer seems to be somewhat more complicated. People's judgements seem to depend on what the particular side-effect happens to be. More specifically, it seems that people are more willing to consider a side-effect intentional if the side-effect is something bad than they are if it is something good.

Why do we obtain these results? When we switch the effect from good to bad, why do people suddenly have different intuitions about whether or not it was brought about intentionally?
Now, data from the study indicate that people blame the agent if his behavior has a bad side-effect but that they don't praise the agent if his behavior has a good side-effect.
interesting question.

The harder I work, the luckier I get. (well, used to be, but that is another story)

My sister is a welfare queen, free rent, free food, free utilities, they really don't give "checks" anymore which means everyone on welfare now HAS to cheat as their is no way to survive without cash.

I worked my way through school with a kid and no government help. Yeah, I'm lucky.

There is an hidden bias in the story. Common sense tells us that there are no free meals in the universe. Increasing profit on the expanse of harming the environment is a more coherent story than the first one, therefore the intention seems to be consistent with both facts (the increase in profit and the harm to the environment) whereas on the first story the facts are more dissociated and do not merit the same intentionality for most. So the response is not entirely about good or bad side effects.