Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
1-7-2017
SSRN Discipline
Legal Scholarship Network; BioRN Subject Matter eJournals; CSN Subject Matter eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Cognitive Science Network; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Law, Brain & Behavior eJournals; Political Science Network; Management Research Network; Biology Research Network
Abstract
Claims for the relevance and importance of neuroscience for law are stronger than ever Notwithstanding persuasive arguments that illustrate a wide degree of overÂclaiming in the literature new claims alleging the importance of neuroscience for law are common1 This chapter discusses three examples of overclaiming how develÂopments in neuroscience can contribute to issues in legal theory The first example foÂcuses on general jurisprudential theories about the nature of law and legal reasoning We evaluate arguments concerning how neuroscientific evidence will contribute imÂportant insights for jurisprudential debates The second and third examples concern moral and economic decision making respectively We evaluate several arguments about how neuroscientific evidence will illuminate decision making in these domains and how these insights ought to be applied to issues in law and public policy
Recommended Citation
Michael S. Pardo,
The Promise of Neuroscience for Law: 'Overclaiming' in Jurisprudence, Morality, and Economics,
(2017).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers/612