Ethics, Law and Neuroscience. An Essay on the Boundaries of Human Judgment

Author/s Luca Pani, Gilberto Corbellini
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/3 Language Italian
Pages 30 P. 9-38 File size 283 KB
DOI 10.3280/DC2020-003002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

For at least three decades, neurosciences have been studying the biological and psychological bases of behaviors involved in the regulation of human sociality, such as judgments and moral actions, as well as how to recognize, establish and sanction illegal behaviors. It is important to understand how to use science in determining the processes that establish responsibility and sanctions for a crime committed or the impartiality and independence of the judge and jury, which are conditioned in their decisions by prejudices. In this sense, neuroscience has redefined in completely different terms and almost opposite to the philosophical assumptions of common sense that inspire the logic of justice, the assumptions of conscience and determination and, ultimately, the very idea of free will.

Keywords: Neuroetica; Morale virtuale; Neurodiritto; Criteri Daubert; Euristiche e Bias; Epistemologia giuridica; Neuroethics; Virtual Morality, Neurolaw; Daubert Rules; Heuris-tics and Biases; Legal Epistemology.

  1. Bianchi A., Gulotta G, Sartori, a cura di (2009), Manuale di Neuroscienze Forensi, Giuffrè, Milano 2009.
  2. Bornstein B.H., Greene E., Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology (2011), in Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1): 63-67.
  3. Brosnan S.F. (2013), Justice- and fairness-related behaviors in non-human primates, in PNAS, 110: 10416-23.
  4. Buckholtz J.W., Asplund C.L., Dux P.E., Zald D.H., Gore J.C., Jones O.D., Marois R. (2008), The neural correlates of third-party punishment, in Neuron, 60: 930-940.
  5. Buckholtz M. (2012), The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement, in Nature Neuroscience, 2012, 15: 655-661.
  6. Caspi A., McClay J., Moffitt T.E., Mill J., Martin J., Craig I.W. et al. (2002), Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children, in Science, 297, pp. 851-854.
  7. Cima M., Tonnaer F, Hauser M.D. (2010), Psychopaths know right from wrong but don’t care, in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 5(1): 59-67.
  8. Crockett M.J., Clark L., Hauser M.D., Robbins T.W. (2010), Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(40): 17433-8.
  9. Cushman F. (2013), Action, outcome, and value: a dual-system framework for morality, in Personality and social psychology review: an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc., 17(3): 273-92.
  10. Dawkins R. (2006), Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car. -- Online:
  11. De Leo G. (1996), Psicologia della responsabilità, Laterza, Roma-Bari.
  12. De Cataldo Neuburger L., a cura di (2010), Scienza e processo penale. Linee guida per l’acquisizione della prova scientifica, Cedam, Padova.
  13. Di Giovine O. (2019), Ripensare il diritto penale attraverso le neuroscienze, Giappichelli, Torino.
  14. Fede S.J., Gowin J.L., Manza P. (2018), An Eye for an Eye: Neural Correlates of the Preference for Punishment-Based Justice, in Journal of Neuroscience, 38(35): 7559-7561.
  15. Feldman Hall O., Mobbs D., Evans D., Hiscox L., Navrady L., Dalgleish T. (2012), What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices, in Cognition, 123(3): 434-41.
  16. Foot P. (1978), Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 19-32.
  17. Francis K.B., Howard C., Howard I.S., Gummerum M., Ganis G, Anderson G. et al. (2016), Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action?, in PLoS ONE, 11(10): e0164374; Correction (2017), in PLOS ONE, 12(1): e0170133.
  18. Garland B. (eds.) (2004), Neuroscience and the Law, Dana Press, Washington DC.
  19. Garland B., Frankel M.S. (2006), Considering Convergence: A Policy Dialogue About Behavioral Genetics, Neuroscience and Law, in Law and Contemporary Probs., 68, 101, pp. 101-113.
  20. Gazzaniga M.S. (2005), The ethical brain, Dana Press, New York/Washington DC (tr. it. La mente etica, Codice edizioni, Torino 2010).
  21. Gazzaniga M.S. (2008), The Law and the Neuroscience, in Neuron, 60, 6, pp. 412-415.
  22. Grandi C. (2016), Neuroscienze e responsabilità penale. Nuove soluzioni per problemi antichi, Giappichelli, Torino.
  23. Greene J.D., Morelli S.A., Lowenberg K., Nystrom L.E., Cohen J.D. (2008), Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment, in Cognition, 107(3): 1144-54.
  24. Greene J.D., Sommerville R.B., Nystrom L.E., Darley J.M., Cohen JD. (2001), An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment, in Science, 293(5537): 2105-2108.
  25. Greene J.D., Cohen J.D. (2004), For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything, in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359, pp. 1775-1785.
  26. Kastner R.M. (2010), Moral judgments and visual attention: an eye-tracking investigation. Chrestomathy, in Annual Review of Undergraduate Research, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Languages, Cultures, and World Affair, 9: 114-28.
  27. Kiehl K.A. (2014), The Psychopath Whisperer. The Science of Those without Conscience, Crown Publisher, New York 2014.
  28. Kiehl K.A. (2008), Without morals: The cognitive neuroscience of criminal psychopaths, in Sinnott-Armstrong W. (eds.), Moral psychology, 3, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 119-149.
  29. Koenigs M., Young L., Adolphs R., Tranel D., Cushman F., Hauser M. et al. (2007), Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements, in Nature, 446(7138): 908-11.
  30. Lavazza A., Sammicheli L. (2010), Il nuovo rapporto tra diritto e neuroscienze: il caso dello psicopatico, in Sistemi intelligenti, 2: 241-254.
  31. Lavazza A., Sammicheli L., a cura di (2012), Il delitto nel cervello. La scienza tra mente e diritto, Codice edizioni, Torino 2012.
  32. Merzagora Betsos I. (2012), Colpevoli si nasce? Criminologia, determinismo, neuroscienze, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2012.
  33. Morse S.J. (2006), Moral and legal responsibility and the new neuroscience, in Illes J. (eds.), Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice and policies, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 33-50.
  34. Morse S.J. (2011), Lost in Translation? An Essay on Law and Neuroscience, in Freeman M. (eds.), Law and neuroscience, in Current Legal Issues 2010, vol. 13, Oxford University Press, NY, pp. 529-562.
  35. Navarrete C.D., McDonald M.M., Mott M.L., Asher B. (2012), Virtual morality: emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional “trolley problem”, in Emotion, 12(2): 364-70.
  36. Patil I., Cogoni C., Zangrando N., Chittaro L., Silani G. (2014), Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas, in Social neuroscience, 9(1): 94-107.
  37. Peer E., Gamliel E. (2013), Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions, in Court Review, 49: 114-118.
  38. Picozza E., Capraro L., Cuzzocrea V., Terracina D., a cura di (2014), Neurodiritto. Una introduzione, Giappichelli, Torino.
  39. Savulescu J, Persson I., Wilkinson D. (2020), Utilitarianism and the Pandemic, in Bioethics, first published: 20 May 2020: --
  40. Schnall S., Haidt J., Clore G.L., Jordan AH. (2008), Disgust as embodied moral judgment, in Pers Soc Psychol B, 34(8): 1096-109.
  41. Skulmowski A., Bunge A., Kaspar K., Pipa G. (2014), Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study, in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 8: 426.
  42. Slater M., Antley A., Davison A., Swapp D., Guger C., Barker C. et al. (2006), A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments, in PloS one, 1(1).
  43. Stallen M., Rossi F., Heijne A., Smidts A., De Dreu C.K.W., Sanfey A.G. (2018), Neurobiological Mechanisms of Responding to Injustice, in Journal of Neuroscience, 38(12): 2944-2954.
  44. The Royal Society, Neuroscience and the Law, December 2011.
  45. Thoma S. (1994), Moral judgments and moral action, in Ez JRRDN (eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics, Psychology Press Ltd, London, pp. 199-212.
  46. Weber M. (1904-5), Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus; in Gesammelte Aufsätzen zur Religionssoziologie (tr. it. L’etica protestante e lo spirito del capitalismo, Sansoni, Firenze 1965).
  47. Zhong C.B., Strejcek B., Sivanathan N. (2010), A clean self can render harsh moral judgment, in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5): 859-62.

Luca Pani, Gilberto Corbellini, Etica, Diritto e Neuroscienze. Saggio sui confini del giudizio umano in "DIRITTO COSTITUZIONALE" 3/2020, pp 9-38, DOI: 10.3280/DC2020-003002