Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience
Michael S. Pardo
University of Alabama School of Law
European University Institute; Rutgers University School of Law, Camden; Swansea University School of Law; European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW)
February 6, 2009
University of Illinois Law Review, 2010
U of Alabama Public Law Research Paper No. 1338763
According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to transform law. Many neurolegalists - those championing the power of neuroscience for law - proceed from problematic premises regarding the relationship of mind to brain. In this Article, we make the case that their accounts of the nature of mind are implausible and that their conclusions are overblown. Thus, their claims of the power of neuroscience for law cannot be sustained. We discuss a wide array of examples including lie detection, criminal-law doctrine, economic decision-making, moral decision-making, and jurisprudence.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 40
Keywords: Neuroscience, fMRI, Mind, Brain, Mereological Fallacy, Lie Detection, Deception, Voluntariness, Intent, Knowledge, Economic Decision-Making, Moral Decision-Making, Jurisprudence, Legal Decision-Making
Date posted: February 6, 2009 ; Last revised: December 26, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.406 seconds