Minds, Brains and Norms
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1874-5490; 1874-5504
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Neuroethics, 2011, 4, 3, 179-190
Cite
PARDO, Michael S., PATTERSON, Dennis, Minds, Brains and Norms, Neuroethics, 2011, 4, 3, 179-190 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/21822
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.