Property Law Reflections of a Sense of Right and Wrong

Chapter
Part of the Evolutionary Psychology book series (EVOLPSYCH)

Abstract

An evolutionary perspective on human morality may help us understand and critique the law. This chapter examines three areas of American property law. In two of the three areas, title by first possession and title by adverse possession, the pieces of legal doctrine fit together when seen through an evolutionary lens. In the third area of law, compensation for eminent domain, the inconsistency between the legal doctrine and biologically predictable human attitudes suggests why governmental takings of property raise public ire and suggests what can be done to make the law less offensive to normal sensibilities.

Keywords

Property Possession Adverse possession Eminent domain Just compensation Bourgeois strategy Evolutionary psychology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bentham, J. (1864). The theory of legislation, principles of the civil code, Part I. Dumont ed., Hildreth Trans.Google Scholar
  2. Cribbet, J. E., & Johnson, C. E. (1989). Principles of the law of property (3rd ed.).Google Scholar
  3. Davies, N. B. (1976). Food, flocking and territorial behaviour of the pied wagtail (Motacilla alba yarrellii Gould). Journal of Animal Ecology, 45, 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype; The long reach of the gene.Google Scholar
  5. Egge, A. R., Brandt, Y., & Swallow, J. G. (2011). Sequential analysis of aggressive interactions in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.02.002.
  7. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan, B. (1983). Encounters with O.W. Holmes, Jr. Harvard Law Review, 96, 1828–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krebs, J. R. (1982). Territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major): Do residents always win? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 11, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games.Google Scholar
  11. Maynard Smith, J. (1989). Did Darwin get it right? Google Scholar
  12. Maynard Smith, J., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behavior, 24, 159–175.Google Scholar
  13. Mellencamp, J., & Green, G. Key West Intermezzo (I Saw You First).Google Scholar
  14. Sigg, H., & Falett, J. (1985). Experiments on respect of possession and property in hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas). Animal Behaviour, 33, 978–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stake, J. E. (2001). The uneasy case for adverse possession. Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2419–2474.Google Scholar
  16. Stevens, E. F. (1988). Contests between bands of feral horses for access to freshwater: The resident wins. Animal Behaviour, 36, 1851–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69, 1–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Woodward, A. L. (1999). Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University Maurer School of LawBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations