David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 4 (3):195-203 (2011)
In Minds, Brains, and Norms , Pardo and Patterson deny that the activities of persons (knowledge, rule-following, interpretation) can be understood exclusively in terms of the brain, and thus conclude that neuroscience is irrelevant to the law, and to the conceptual and philosophical questions that arise in legal contexts. On their view, such appeals to neuroscience are an exercise in nonsense. We agree that understanding persons requires more than understanding brains, but we deny their pessimistic conclusion. Whether neuroscience can be used to address legal issues is an empirical question. Recent work on locked-in syndrome, memory, and lying suggests that neuroscience has potential relevance to the law, and is far from nonsensical. Through discussion of neuroscientific methods and these recent results we show how an understanding of the subpersonal mechanisms that underlie person-level abilities could serve as a valuable and illuminating source of evidence in legal and social contexts. In so doing, we sketch the way forward for a no-nonsense approach to the intersection of law and neuroscience
|Keywords||Personal/Subpersonal distinction Neuroscience Law|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Reid (2002). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Thomas Reid (2002/1971). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Pennsylvania State University Press.
M. R. Bennett (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Blackwell Pub..
Norman Malcolm (1977). Memory and Mind. Cornell University Press.
David Hume (1977). Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Pallarés-Dominguez & Elsa González Esteban (forthcoming). The Ethical Implications of Considering Neurolaw as a New Power. Ethics and Behavior:1-15.
Similar books and articles
Carl F. Craver & Sarah K. Robins (2011). No Nonsense Neuro-Law. Neuroethics 4 (3):195-203.
Michael Pardo & Dennis Patterson (2011). Minds, Brains, and Norms. Neuroethics 4 (3):179-190.
Dennis Patterson (2011). Minds, Brains, and Norms. Neuroethics 4 (3):179-190.
Michael Freeman (ed.) (2011). Law and Neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Nicole A. Vincent (2010). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
M. Farisco & C. Petrini (2012). The Impact of Neuroscience and Genetics on the Law: A Recent Italian Case. Neuroethics 5 (3):317-319.
A. M. Viens (2011). Reciprocity and Neuroscience in Public Health Law. In Michael Freeman (ed.), Law and Neuroscience. Oxford University Press
Michael S. Pardo & Dennis Patterson (2011). More on the Conceptual and the Empirical: Misunderstandings, Clarifications, and Replies. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):215-222.
Carl F. Craver (2009). Explaining the Brain. OUP Oxford.
Amy T. Campbell (2012). Teaching Law in Medical Schools: First, Reflect. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (2):301-310.
Michael S. Moore (2012). Responsible Choices, Desert-Based Legal Institutions, and the Challenges of Contemporary Neuroscience. Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1):233-279.
Lars Hertzberg (2001). The Sense is Where You Find It. In Timothy McCarthy & Sean C. Stidd (eds.), Wittgenstein in America. Oxford University Press 90--102.
Stacey A. Tovino (2008). The Impact of Neuroscience on Health Law. Neuroethics 1 (2):101-117.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads25 ( #146,634 of 1,789,721 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #418,435 of 1,789,721 )
How can I increase my downloads?