Journal article icon

Journal article

Is neurolaw conceptually confused?

Abstract:

In Minds, Brains, and Law, Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson argue that current attempts to use neuroscience to inform the theory and practice of law founder because they are built on confused conceptual foundations. Proponents of neurolaw attribute to the brain or to its parts psychological properties that belong only to people; this mistake vitiates many of the claims they make. Once neurolaw is placed on a sounder conceptual footing, Pardo and Patterson claim, we will see that it...

Expand abstract
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed
Version:
Publisher's version

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1007/s10892-014-9168-z

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Research group:
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Department:
Humanities Division - Philosophy Faculty
Role:
Author
More from this funder
Funding agency for:
Neil Levy
Australian Research Council More from this funder
Publisher:
Springer Netherlands Publisher's website
Journal:
The Journal of Ethics Journal website
Volume:
18
Issue:
2
Pages:
171–185
Publication date:
2014-06-05
DOI:
EISSN:
1572-8609
ISSN:
1382-4554
URN:
uuid:14a75110-6714-49be-a786-2b4b2cb3b0dc
Local pid:
ora:9776

Terms of use


Metrics


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP