Greene and Cohen Philosophy Theory

7/24/2019 Greene and Cohen Philosophy Theory

1/47

Phi 2394b

Week 7Joshua Greene & Jonathan Cohen

2004:

For the law, neuroscience chanesnothin an! e"er#thin


2/47

Ju!in so$e books b# theirco"ers


3/47



4/47



5/47



6/47



7/47



8/47

Free Will "s% eter$inis$

'(ree will) * ca+acit# o( rational aents to choose a

course o( action (ro$ a$on "arious

alternati"es i%e% hu$an actions can o $an# !ierent

wa#s


9/47


'(ree will) * ca+acit# o( rational aents to choose a

course o( action (ro$ a$on "arious

alternati"es i%e% hu$an actions can o $an# !ierent

wa#s

'!eter$inis$) * theor# about the uni"erse: all e"ents

are necessitate! b# antece!entcon!itions toether with the laws o(

nature


10/47


-ra!itionall#, '(ree will) is !escribe!as the abilit# to !o otherwise i%e% an action is a result o( (ree will onl#

in cases in which !ierent actions coul!ha"e occurre!


11/47


-ra!itionall#, '(ree will) is !escribe!as the abilit# to !o otherwise i%e% an action is a result o( (ree will onl#

in cases in which !ierent actions coul!ha"e occurre!

eter$inis$ is wi!el# taken to rule

out (ree will as !e.ne! this wa# /( the uni"erse is a !eter$inistic s#ste$,

an! hu$ans are +art o( the uni"erse,then there are ne"er an# alternati"es tohu$an actions


12/47

ow is this rele"ant to thelaw1

Free will is rele"ant to the lawbecause ha"in (ree will is wi!el#taken to be criterial (or $oral

res+onsibilit# i%e% i( an action is not the result o( (ree

will, it is not an action (or which a

+erson shoul! be hel! res+onsible


13/47


Free will is rele"ant to the law becauseha"in (ree will is wi!el# taken to becriterial (or $oral res+onsibilit# i%e% i( an action is not the result o( (ree will,

it is not an action (or which a +ersonshoul! be hel! res+onsible

*lthouh $oral an! leal res+onsibilit#are !istinct, the# o"erla+%


14/47


Free will is rele"ant to the law becauseha"in (ree will is wi!el# taken to becriterial (or $oral res+onsibilit#

i%e% i( an action is not the result o( (ree will, itis not an action (or which a +erson shoul! behel! res+onsible

*lthouh $oral an! leal res+onsibilit#

are !istinct, the# o"erla+% i%e% the treat$ent o( con"icts is su++ose! to

be !eser"e!


15/47

etributi"is$

'etributi"is$) is the link between$oral an! leal res+onsibilit# /t is a central issue in $oral +hiloso+h#:

it is the "iew that so$e hu$an actions!eser"e to be +unishe!rewar!e!


16/47

etributi"is$

'etributi"is$) is the link between$oral an! leal res+onsibilit# /t is a central issue in $oral +hiloso+h#:

it is the "iew that so$e hu$an actions!eser"e to be +unishe!rewar!e!

etributi"is$ is a wa# o( usti(#in

the +unish$ent o( cri$inals i%e% it is ok to +unish cri$inals because

the# !eser"e it


17/47

/s the leal s#ste$retributi"ist1


18/47

/s the leal s#ste$retributi"ist1

Greene an! Cohen clai$ that it is: 5We obser"e that the co$$on6sense

a++roach to $oral an! leal

res+onsibilit# has conseuentialistele$ents, but is larel# retributi"ist%8+% 77;?- ha"e (ree will, an! thus !o >?-!eser"e +unish$ent


23/47

ow !o we et to a non6retributi"e

ustice s#ste$1

-his is where neuroscience co$es in: Green an! Cohen arue that i( cri$inal

+unish$ent is su++ose! to be

so$ethin !eser"e!, then cri$inalsbetter ha"e (ree will

-he# +re!ict that neuroscience wille"entuall# +ersua!e +eo+le that +ersons!o >?- ha"e (ree will, an! thus !o >?-!eser"e +unish$ent

-his will result in sini.cant chanes to

the ustice s#ste$


24/47

ow !o we et to a non6retributi"ist

ustice s#ste$1


25/47

ow !o we et to a non6retributi"ist

ustice s#ste$1

5-he net eect o( this in@uA o( Bneuro6scienti.c in(or$ation will be a reection o((ree will as it is or!inaril# concei"e!, withi$+ortant ra$i.cations (or the law D with thereection o( co$$on6sense conce+tions o((ree will co$es the reection o( retributi"is$

an! an ensuin shi(t towar!s aconseuentialist a++roach to +unish$ent, i%e%one ai$e! at +ro$otin (uture wel(are ratherthan $etin out ust !eserts%8 +% 77E

Greene and Cohen Philosophy Theory

Documents