Minds, Brains, and Norms
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Arguments for the importance of neuroscience reach across many disciplines. Advocates of neuroscience have made wide-ranging claims for neuroscience in the realms of ethics, value, and law. In law, for example, many scholars have argued for an increased role for neuroscientific evidence in the assessment of criminal responsibility. In this article, we take up claims for the explanatory role of neuroscience in matters of morals and law. Drawing on our previous work together, we assess the cogency of neuroscientific explanations of three issues that arise in these domains: rule-following, interpretation, and knowledge. We critique these explanations and in general challenge claims as to the efficacy of the neuroscientific accounts.
- Pardo, Michael S., and Dennis Patterson. forthcoming 2010. “Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience,” Univ. of Illinois Law Review, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1338763.
- Glannon, Walter. 2009. Our brains are not us. Bioethics 23: 321. CrossRef
- Noë, Alva. 2009. Out of Our Heads.
- Greene, Joshua, and Jonathan Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soc’y London 359: 1775. CrossRef
- Bennett, Maxwell, and P.M.S. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, 68–74.
- Greene, Joshua, and Jonathan Haidt. 2002. How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 517. CrossRef
- Chorvat, Terrence, and Kevin McCabe. 2006. The Brain and the Law. In Law & the Brain, eds. Semir Zeki, and Oliver Goodenough, 128.
- Sanfey, Alan G., et al. 2006. Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 108. CrossRef
- Goodenough, Oliver R. 2001. Mapping cortical areas associated with legal reasoning and moral intuition. Jurimetrics Journal 41: 420.
- Bennett M.R., and P.M.S. Hacker. 2008. A History of Cognitive Neuroscience.
- Mikhail, John. 2009. Moral grammar and intuitive jurisprudence: A formal model of unconscious moral and legal knowledge. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 50: 27. 28. CrossRef
- Hauser, Marc D. 2006. Moral Minds 42.
- Mikhail, John. 2007. Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 143. 148. CrossRef
- Baker, G.P., and P.M.S. Hacker. 2005 Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning (Volume 1 of An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations) 185 (2d ed., Revised by P.M.S. Hacker 2005).
- Patterson, Dennis. 2006. Dworkin on the semantics of legal and political concepts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 545–557. CrossRef
- Bennett, Maxwell, and Peter Hacker. 2007. The Conceptual Presuppositions of Cognitive Neuroscience. In Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind and Language, eds. Maxwell Bennett, Daniel Dennett, Peter Hacker, and John Searle, 151.
- Goodenough, Oliver R. 2001. Mapping cortical areas associated with legal reasoning and moral intuition. Jurimetrics Journal 41: 429. 436.
- Patterson, Dennis. 1996. Law and Truth 71–98.
- Quine, W.V. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 51–55. Columbia University Press.
- Baker, G.P., and P.M.S. Hacker. 1980. Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning (Volume 2 of An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations). Blackwell, p. 667.
- Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind, 25–61.
- Hetherington, Stephen. 2006. How to Know (that Knowledge-That is Knowledge-How). In Epistemology Futures, ed. Hetherington, 71–94.
- Bennett, M.R., and P.M.S. Hacker. 2008. A History of Cognitive Neuroscience 96.
- Bauby, Jean-Dominique. 1997. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
- Arizona, Clark v. 2006. 548 U.S. 735, 747.
- Eyal, Aharoni, et al. 2008. Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124: 145–160. CrossRef
- O’Hara, Erin Ann. 2004. How neuroscience might advance the law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London 359: 1677–1684. CrossRef
- Farwell, Lawrence A., and Sharon S. Smith. 2001. Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite effort to conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46: 135.
- Giridharadas, Anand. “India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts is Debated,” NY Times, Sept. 14, 2008.
- Kozel, F.Andrew, et al. 2005. Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry 58: 605. CrossRef
- Langleben, D.D. 2002. Brain activity during simulated deception: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage 15: 727. CrossRef
- Fallis, Don. 2009. What is lying? Journal of Philosophy 106: 29.
- Milton, John, et al. 2007. The mind of expert motor performance is cool and focused. Neuroimage 35: 804–813. CrossRef
- Monteleone, George T., et al. 2009. Detection of deception using fmri: better than chance, but well below perfection. Social Neuroscience 4: 528. CrossRef
- Minds, Brains, and Norms
Volume 4, Issue 3 , pp 179-190
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Mens rea
- Lie detection