Abstract
Abstract:This short article proposes a conceptual structure for “neurolaw,” modeled loosely on the bipartite division of the sister field of neuroethics by Adina Roskies into the “ethics of neuroscience” and the “neuroscience of ethics.” As normative fields addressing the implications of scientific discoveries and expanding technological capacities affecting the brain, “neurolaw” and neuroethics have followed parallel paths. Similar foundational questions arise for both about the validity and utility of recognizing them as distinct subfields of law and ethics, respectively. In both, a useful distinction can be drawn between a self-reflexive inquiry (the neuroscience of ethics and law) and an inquiry into the development and use of brain science and technologies (the ethics and law of neuroscience). In both fields, these two forms of inquiry interact in interesting ways. In addition to a proposed conceptual structure for neurolaw, the article also addresses the neurolegal versions of the critiques made against neuroethics, including charges of reductionism, fact/value confusion, and biological essentialism.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science)
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges;Neuroethics;2023-01-13
2. Which Ethical Issues Need to Be Considered Related to Microwires or Utah Arrays?;Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics;2023
3. References;Problems of Living;2021
4. The good and the bad;Problems of Living;2021
5. On the Nontechnical Limits of Brain Imaging;Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics;2020-09-07