Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Minds, Brains, and Norms

Minds, Brains, and Norms 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Neuroethics Springer Journals

Minds, Brains, and Norms

Pardo, Michael; Patterson, Dennis
Neuroethics , Volume 4 (3) – Jun 19, 2010
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journal/minds-brains-and-norms-d34k97ck0s

References (24)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Philosophy; Neurosurgery; Ethics; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurobiology; Neuropsychology
ISSN
1874-5490
eISSN
1874-5504
DOI
10.1007/s12152-010-9082-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Neuroethics – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 19, 2010

There are no references for this article.