This lecture offers a brief examination of the interaction between law and emotions in two parts. The first one tackles the philosophical origins of the prevailing understanding of this relationship and argues that the prevailing attitude towards emotions in the legal realm has been (at least in part) shaped by the almost uniform treatment of emotions by major philosophers. The second one examines how the prevailing understanding of law and emotions is reflected in theoretical conceptualisations of law and its practical application. The predominant attitude towards emotions rests on the presupposition that law is inherently rational and that emotions need to be excluded or at least curtailed in theoretical analysis of law and its practical application.
Law and emotion (1)
1 / 3
In what way does Hume's treatment of emotions depart from the consensus?
2 / 3
How does the overwhelming majority of philosophers discussed in the video lecture regard emotions?
3 / 3
How would you characterise the prevailing understanding of the relationship between law and emotions?
Your score is
Law and emotion (2)
Aristotel has defined law as "reason free from all passion". That implies that:
We can often observe that legal proceedings are structured so that:
The prevailing understanding is that legal reasoning