This lecture offers a theoretical framework for analysing the ways in which insights about human and artificial cognition challenge existing legal (reasoning) practices. It briefly touches on possible pathways to address these challenges as well.
The dual challenge from AI and the cognitive sciences (1)
1 / 3
Rawls distinguishes between justifications of a practice and within a practice; Mackor between internal and external questions. How are these distinctions connected?
2 / 3
Alces and Sapolsky (2022) hold that current legal practices undermine human thriving, because they rely on a misconception of what it means to be human. Where would you situate this view in the framework developed in this lecture?
3 / 3
There have been some cases of men who developed uncontrollable paedophilia due to the growth of a brain tumour. Consider the question what, if any, role the insight that acquired paedophilia can be a consequence of cancer in the orbitofrontal region of the brain play in the sentencing of individuals. Where would you situate this question in the framework developed in this lecture?
Your score is
The dual challenge from AI and the cognitive sciences (2)
Why and in what way can the distinction between theoretical and practical reason be said to lead to the conclusion that there can be no inconsistency between legal practices and insights from the cognitive sciences?
What distinguishes practical from theoretical reason?
The lecture identifies three different possibilities regarding the consistency between legal practices and insights about human/artificial cognition. What are they? That law and insights…