...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Law Library Journal >The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience
【24h】

The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience

机译：法律与神经科学的道德冲突

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

1 While Peter A. Alces' The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience is mostly successful, it can be a frustrating book, especially for a reader who expects substantiated claims and is skeptical of the either/or fallacy. It is frustrating when Alces blends evidence-based research and discussion about the relationship between human biology, psychology, and the law with arguments by assertion that rely heavily on a series of unproven, poorly supported premises. As a whole, the book is wildly uneven. This comes down to several sections where Alces writes outside of his areas of expertise without doing sufficient research. These sections are monuments to bad philosophy and unproven assumptions, where Alces admits to making up statistics and then proceeds as if they are true. In the sections where he focuses on law, especially tort and contract law, Alces is in his element. When he engages with other legal scholars, he avoids broad proclamations and crafts carefully cited, evidence-based arguments. He examines the works of Ernest Weinrib, Stephen Morse, Jules Coleman, and others, and examines the moral implications of their theories while contrasting them with developments in neuroscience.12 The text begins with Alces laying out his arguments, explaining what he sees as the gap between how human biology works and the assumptions made by the legal system. He then goes into detail, examining the relationships between neuro-science and criminal law, tort law, and contract law. In the final chapter, Alces attempts to address anticipated criticism of his work.
机译：1虽然彼得·A·阿尔切斯（Peter A. Alces）的《法律与神经科学的道德冲突》大获成功，但它可能是一本令人沮丧的书，特别是对于那些希望获得有根据的主张并且对“或”或“谬误”持怀疑态度的读者而言。当Alces将有关人类生物学，心理学和法律之间关系的基于证据的研究和讨论与断言的论点相结合时，这令人沮丧，断言主要依赖于一系列未经证实的，缺乏充分支持的前提。总体而言，这本书非常不平衡。这归结为Alces在没有进行足够研究的情况下超出其专业知识领域撰写的几个部分。这些部分是不良哲学和未经证实的假设的纪念碑，Alces在其中承认要编造统计数据，然后将其视为真实数据进行处理。在他着重于法律（尤其是侵权法和合同法）的部分中，Alces是他的要素。当他与其他法律学者交往时，他避免了广泛的宣告，并避免了精心引用的循证论据。他考察了欧内斯特·韦里伯（Ernest Weinrib），斯蒂芬·莫尔斯（Stephen Morse），朱尔斯·科尔曼（Jules Coleman）等人的作品，并考察了它们的理论在道德上的含义，同时将它们与神经科学的发展进行了对比。12文本开头是阿尔斯（Alces）提出了自己的观点，并解释了他所认为的人类生物学的运作方式与法律体系的假设之间的差距。然后，他详细介绍了神经科学与刑法，侵权法和合同法之间的关系。在最后一章中，Alces试图解决对其工作的预期批评。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号