|
Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New York, USA
Processing request.
|
Illinois, USA
Processing request.
|
Brussels, Belgium
Processing request.
|
Seoul, Korea
Processing request.
|
California, USA
Processing request.
|
If you have any problems downloading this paper,
please click on another Download Location above, or
File name: SSRN-id1782996. ; Size: 269K
|
|
Neuroimaging and Responsibility Assessments
Nicole A. Vincent
Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University; Delft University of Technology - Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management
January 21, 2009
Neuroethics, January 21, 2009
Abstract:
Could neuroimaging evidence help us to assess the degree of a person’s responsibility for a crime which we know that they committed? This essay defends an affirmative answer to this question. A range of standard objections to this high-tech approach to assessing people’s responsibility is considered and then set aside, but I also bring to light and then reject a novel objection - an objection which is only encountered when functional (rather than structural) neuroimaging is used to assess people’s responsibility.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 15
Keywords: Moral responsibility, Legal responsibility, Capacity-theoretic conception of responsibility, Capacitarian theory of responsibility, Mental capacity, Capacity responsibility, Neuroimaging, fMRI, Modal fallacy, Automatic functions, Theory to the best explanation, Roper v Simmons
Accepted Paper Series
Download This Paper
Date posted: December 9, 2009
; Last revised: March 12, 2011
Suggested CitationVincent, Nicole A., Neuroimaging and Responsibility Assessments (January 21, 2009). Neuroethics, January 21, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1519431
|
| Feedback to SSRN (Beta) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
