Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPARDO, Michael S.
dc.contributor.authorPATTERSON, Dennis
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-04T13:34:46Z
dc.date.available2012-05-04T13:34:46Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationNeuroethics, 2011, 4, 3, 179-190en
dc.identifier.issn1874-5490
dc.identifier.issn1874-5504
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/21822
dc.description.abstractArguments 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.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.titleMinds, Brains and Normsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12152-010-9082-4


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record