بازاندیشی عاملیت اراده آزاد در مسئولیت های حقوقی در پرتو یافته های عصب - فلسفه نوین (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
هدف اصلی این مقاله، بازاندیشی تأثیر اراده آزاد در گزینش تصمیم و ارتکاب کنش های حقوقی و تحقق مسئولیت ناشی از آن در پرتو پیشرفت ها و تحولات اخیر در دانش عصب شناسی و فلسفه ذهن معاصر است. پرسش اصلی این است که آیا با پیشرفت های اخیر، دانش عصب شناسی و نظریه های حاکم در فلسفه ذهن معاصر می توان کماکان قائل به عاملیت اراده آزاد در کنش های حقوقی و پذیرش مسئولیت ناشی از آن بود؟ در میان دکترین حقوقی، شاهد گرایش اصلی فیزیکالیسم تقلیل گرا و دوگانه گرایی جوهری هستیم که اولی به فقدان عاملیت ذهنی و ارادی انسان و فقدان مسئولیت حقوقی و دومی بر عاملیت ارادی انسان و مسئولیت حقوقی ناشی از عاملیت متمایل است. نظر پیشنهادی نویسنده بر پایه فیزیکالیسم غیرتقلیلی و نتیجه گرا و تمایز میان تصمیمات آنی و بدون ملاحظه دلیل و پیامد و تصمیمات معنادار و هدفمند مبتنی است که براساس آن از یک طرف، ضمن پذیرش تأثیر فیزیکی سلول های عصبی مغز در گزینش تصمیم و رفتار، در تأثیرگذاری غایی نفس درخصوص گزینش نهایی تصمیم و کیفیت آن برپایه دلایل و غایات (امیال و باورها) تأکید می ورزد و از طرف دیگر، به جای تمرکز بر مؤلفه های ذهنی خطاکار حین تصمیم گیری، بر قابلیت انتساب فیزیکی پیامدها به فعل ارتکابی استوار است.Rethinking the Role of Free will in Legal Responsibilities in the Light of the Findings of Modern Neuro-pilosophy
The main purpose of this article is to rethink the effect of free will in choosing a decision and committing legal actions and realizing the resulting responsibility in the light of recent advances and developments in neuroscience and contemporary philosophy of mind. The main question is whether with the recent advances in knowledge Neurology and the prevailing theories in the contemporary philosophy of mind, can we still believe in the agency of free will in legal actions and accepting the resulting responsibility? The lack of mental and voluntary human agency and the lack of legal responsibility, and the latter is based on the voluntary human agency and the resulting responsibility. The author's proposed opinion is based on non-reductive and consequential physicalism and the distinction between immediate decisions without consideration of reason and consequence and meaningful and purposeful decisions based on which, on the one hand, while accepting the physical effect of brain nerve cells on decision selection and behavior, on the influence Regarding the final selection of the decision and its quality, Ghayi-nafs emphasizes on the basis of reasons and goals (desires and beliefs) and on the other hand, instead of focusing on the mental components of the wrongdoer during decision-making, it is based on the physical attribution of consequences to the committed act. Keywords: Free will, Responsibility, Reductionism, Dualism, Agency 1. Introduction At the end of the 20th century, the findings of contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind permeated legal debates. One of the issues that has faced a serious problem with the introduction of philosophical theories and neurobiological findings is the issue of the agency of free will and its role in the realization of legal responsibilities. The main question of this research is whether free will has the power of agency in committing legal actions according to previous ideas. Or, according to some recent findings of neuroscience, it is nothing more than an illusion and the physical actions of humans are the result of the physical reactions of the nerve cells of the brain? Answering this question in the field of neurology and law has caused fundamental challenges and disagreements; In such a way that some findings, experiments and arguments emphasize the negation of the agency of free will and the negation of moral and legal responsibility and some others, on the opposite point, insist on the agency of free will in decision-making and its responsibility. However, in Iran's legal circles, this question has not yet been raised as a serious question, and no comments have been made about it. To answer the question of the article, while carefully examining each of the philosophical theories and neuroscience data in the field of mental causation of the will, we are trying to restore the place and role of the will in legal actions and the responsibility arising from it, and our proposed theory considering the new findings and experiments of neuroscientists regarding to provide the basis for assigning legal responsibility to human free will. 2. Methodology In this research, we tried to collect and gather information from the primary sources (such as books and articles, theses, research reports, etc.) in scientific research data centers, official and reputable websites, libraries, and similar resources. From the authors' perspective, non-eductive and result-oriented physicalism can be considered the most appropriate approach in identifying legal responsibility in the light of the findings of neuroscience. As well as the results of the neurological experiments of Benjamin Libet and other neuroscientists, based on the ability of the conscious brain to recognize unconscious actions and distinguish between meaningless decisions. Instantaneous and without consequences and meaningful, reasoned and planned decisions can show this aspect of human moral agency. The creation of the unconscious process of decision-making is done by an emotional, first-person, and subjective element called awareness. Voting has no meaning other than human agency in the final decision. It is obvious that the selection criterion of a conscious person is also his reasons (desires and beliefs); thus, will and awareness will play a role in choosing a decision based on ultimate causality. In legal actions, based on the same premise, if a person performs a physical action, it can be considered a meaningful, reason-oriented, purposeful and conscious action, and by identifying the physical causality between the action and the consequence, the legal responsibility is attributed to the cause of the action; Unless, according to the exceptions that are defects of the will (such as compulsion, reluctance, urgency), a rational person or agent does not consider the committed behavior to be his own or his reasons (desires and beliefs). 3. Results and Discussion The ruling and dominant approaches in the field of neuroscience law regarding free will and responsibility are influenced by the two main currents of essential dualism and reductionist physicalism in the philosophy of mind and contemporary neuroscience. Cohen and Green's physicalist and reductionist approach is based on the incompatibility between free will and the material mechanistic model that governs the world of physics, A model based on which any event or effect is realized either deterministically based on physical causes before the event or based on mechanics. Quantum governing the behavior of atomic particles, identifying the movement or future behavior of any physical object is random and chance. In both cases, whether we consider the basis of any event or action to be pre-determined determinism or coincidence and chance, free will is incorrect and untrue; Because free will claims human moral agency in choosing and choosing behavior and is contrary to determinism and chance; As a result of the conflict between the physical mechanism and metaphysical human agency, according to the findings of modern neurology, agency is negated. The result of the negation of human moral agency is the lack of his ability to be blamed for the committed behavior. The result of the lack of blameworthiness will be the lack of human legal responsibility as a consequence of behavior. On the other hand, Stephen Morse, who is considered to be one of the defenders of essential dualism, despite believing in the incompatibility between agency and the mechanistic model governing physics, believes that humans have moral agency in choosing decisions and behavior due to having a soul. According to the author's suggestion, although the decision-making process from the potential readiness to the performance of the action by the muscles of the body occurs completely based on the mechanism governing physics, but unlike the reflexive interactions of inanimate objects, in conscious organisms such as humans, the existence of an independent agent known as the ego or self. , which arises from the lower physical levels, in the face of significant environmental stimuli and situations, based on the reasons (desires, beliefs and preferences), it decides to measure, calculate and choose Even if we believe in the unconscious beginning of the decision-making process in the brain, a person can control, adjust and finally choose the final decision based on the reasons (desires, preferences and beliefs). 4. Conclusions and Future Research According to the recent findings of neuroscientists regarding the distinction between meaningful decisions (based on reasonable reasons) and meaningless decisions (arbitrary, without reason and consideration of consequences), a distinction should be made between immediate decisions and planned and timed decisions, which have legal consequences. In instant decisions, which do not have enough time to calculate and choose the right decision based on a rational evaluation of the reasons and consequences, to overcome the unconscious aspect at the beginning of the decision-making process, it is necessary to review the attribution of the legal consequences of the decision made (such as the imposition of responsibility) to the perpetrator; But in the decisions that a person makes with sufficient opportunity, the ability to calculate and evaluate possible options (access to other alternative behaviors), take the initiative to choose a decision and perform a behavior, it is necessary to impose legal responsibility as a consequence of the committed behavior. The findings of neuroscientists in the field of differentiating immediate and random decisions (meaningless) and decisions based on unlikely and purposeful intentions (meaningful) have not been used in legal systems so far. And its implementation creates a fundamental change in civil and criminal liability systems. In general, the author believes that, based on the proposed theory of non-reductionist consequentialism, if the result or consequence of the brain's neuronal firing is the commission of physical behavior by the muscles of the body, and subsequently, the consequence of human physical behavior is the occurrence of damage (physical event) to another. Based on the premise of the principle of the sovereignty of the will, the damage (ultimate disability) is attributed to the human being as a single body and a rational and independent agent who, in the face of the aforementioned environmental situation, has chosen the committed behavior based on his rational reasons (desires, motivations and beliefs); Provided that in the said situation, he has the possibility and opportunity to calculate and choose a behavior other than the committed behavior.
تبلیغات
