Message 100 of 129 (642458) 11-29-2011 3:10 AM

Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate 11-28-2011 6:42 PM

this may send us of down a long and deep rabit hole, but never mind, it looks quite interesting down there.

You've picked a bad example. Drunk driving is a law derived from statute rather than common law and is a strict liability offence [in the UK at least]. This means that the prosecution only has to prove the act (actus rea) - in this case that the driver exceeded a blood or breath level and was in control of the vehicle at the time - for the case to be proven. The defense can then offer 'reasonable excuse' which may or may not reduce the punishment. A reasonable excuse would be drink spiking if accepted as mitigation.

The important point is that the excuse does not allow a not guilty plea, whereas a mens rea defence of most common law offenses would. In our example, Fred would be convicted of drunk driving but not of murder (or at least he would have a possible defense.)

In your second example, mens rea as you describe it is not applicable. The defendant Is merely ignorant of the law, which is no defense.

Message 102 of 129 (642462) 11-29-2011 4:08 AM

Reply to: Message 99 by NoNukes 11-28-2011 10:38 PM

Ok, as we've decided to have a hair splitting legal discussion instead of a science based one and because it's what Stephen Fry calls QI [Quite Interesting] I'll clarify.

If the lack of moral compass can be shown to be so severe that the defendant did not and could not have known what he was doing (this would normally be a result of demonstrable physical brain damage or disease), he can't be found guilty of (most) common law crimes. This is because of the common law requirement to prove the intent of the act as well as act itself, beyond reasonable doubt.

Strict liability crimes are an exception - see response to Dr Adequate above.

I can't answer for whatever mess you guys made of our laws once you got your excessively punitive hands on them......

Message 103 of 129 (642464) 11-29-2011 4:42 AM

Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate 11-29-2011 3:38 AM

That's no defence but I'm sorry for your loss ;-)

Well, in general, I agree.

All I've ever been saying is that state of mind is a possible defence in law and that the defence comes from the common law concept of mens rea with regards to the various forms of criminal intent - knowingness and premeditation, negligence, recklessness and so on.

Message 106 of 129 (642500) 11-29-2011 12:52 PM

Reply to: Message 104 by NoNukes 11-29-2011 8:56 AM

Let's just try to agree the principle of the bloody thing or we'll be arguing for weeks about something that is incidental to the point of the thread.

The general point is that an individual can not be liable for a serious offence in law if he did not have 'a guilty mind'. One possible way of not having a guilty mind is by having a damaged brain. As is probably the case with Fred.

Having excess alcohol whilst in control of a motor vehicle is a strict liability offence in the UK - and many other jurisdictions. (Please don't let's argue about what 'being in control means' - just take it that being behind the wheel of a moving vehicle is usually enough.)

If it came to court, you'd be found guilty of being drunk in charge but you'd probably be given an unconditional discharge and the magistrates would be complaining about having the charge put before them.

It's far more likely though that no charges would be brought by the police (against the driver) or failing that the CPS would refuse to prosecute. The 'friends' that put you in the car would probably be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and whatever else the arresting officer/CPS could dream up.

In other news, I hear that the Norwegian mass murderer has been declared insane. So he's not going to prison but hospital (subject to the decision standing)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

Message 108 of 129 (642525) 11-29-2011 3:31 PM

Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes 11-29-2011 1:31 PM

No need to go that far :-)

Message 110 of 129 (642650) 11-30-2011 11:45 AM

This is from the neurology papers I posted earlier:

The paper goes on to say that

Message 112 of 129 (642681) 11-30-2011 2:32 PM

Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous 11-30-2011 11:57 AM

Is it right enough to get by, or do we have to run down the rabbit hole again?

Message 114 of 129 (642733) 12-01-2011 6:39 AM

Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous 11-30-2011 3:09 PM

Just for info and completeness, my interpretation came from here:

Which in turn apparently came from here:

1. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science. 2007;316:998-1002.
2. Wilson JQ. The Moral Sense. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1993.

Edited by Tangle, : rubbish grammar

Message 116 of 129 (642773) 12-01-2011 1:53 PM

Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous 12-01-2011 7:04 AM

I don't like that definition of normative:

It's the word 'ideal' that's broken. It pre-supposes we know what's best and can choose or at least list the best morality and (presumably) aspire to it.

My definition says that the normative values are intrinsic to (rational) people. We have them like it or not and those that don't are not normal.

For the purpose of this thread I'm proposing that normative morality is a brain function, an emotion and a sixth sense that has sections of the brain allocated to it. It's not some notional ideal state, it's simply (sic) neurology and like all thing physiological it must vary by individual.

Message 120 of 129 (642832) 12-02-2011 4:28 AM

Reply to: Message 118 by Dr Adequate 12-01-2011 10:49 PM

Like I say, I didn't make up the definition it came from here:

The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review and
Neuropsychiatric Implications
Mario F. Mendez, MD, PhD

I accept that philosophy uses the word 'normative' to mean an ideal state and that science should probably use another one rather than bend the original out of shape. I think 'Normal' behaviour is closer to what the paper is talking about.

The point I'm stumbling to make is that strong moral behaviours of the 'do no harm' type (and others) are normal and universal in people - I don't think that is too contentious.

The new bit of information is that neuroscience is beginning to pin down areas of brain activity relating to those moral/behaviours/emotions.

This means that there is a moral sense (akin to sight, touch smell etc) with neurology to support it. i.e. Morality has a physical presence in the brain - it's not just a philosophical construct, we can touch it and change it. (And of course, it therefore can not be absolute - except as a philosophical or religious construct)

Now it's not at all surprising to find that morality happens in the brain - where else could it be? - but it is QI to begin to see the physical structures that do it.

To get back to the headline of is Biology Destiny? If we finally identify the seats of morality to parts of the brain the answer must be 'yes'.
To some large extents it must be - whether it's nature or nurture or physical damage that causes those parts of your brain to make you feel and act the way you do, the effect is the same; your brain made you do it.

Message 123 of 129 (642840) 12-02-2011 5:29 AM

Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate 12-02-2011 4:36 AM

We can invent all sorts of evolutionary Just So stories about kinship for that of course and maybe that's it's origin. But we also have the other side of the story - the descriptive morality that allows for various authorities to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong' which compliments or overrides the more primitive emotions that are normal in us. (From memory, the normal response is immediate and instinctive whilst the descriptive response is slower and calculated.)

It would be very, very interesting though to see if the bit's of the brain that we've identified as responding to a bit of moral behaviour such as 'do not murder' react differently when asked to harm first a member of your own community and then someone from an obviously dissimilar one. Particularly in a war like situation.

I bet you a pint of warm english beer that there is.

Message 125 of 129 (642850) 12-02-2011 7:55 AM

Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate 12-02-2011 7:04 AM

1. The death of a hated enemy who has killed members of your own clan is likely to overide any higher level general impulse not to kill. I think we can put that down to natural selection.

2. It will vary enormously between individuals. My wife's immediate reaction to OBL's death (execution/murder?) was horror. But then she more or less rationalised it. I think I immediately rationalised it. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that his followers felt it an immoral act at gut level. How that works, god only knows, but it would have been very useful to have us all in fMRI scanners to hear the news.

3. How you think you reacted to OBL may not be how your brain actually reacted. When we say that things happen at different speeds, we're often talking about milli-seconds. You are not conscious of the process only the outcome. (We know - and it baffles me - that the brain reacts to your request to pick up that beer BEFORE you are conscious of the desire to reach for it ie 'it' knows before 'you' do - go figure.)

Message 127 of 129 (643043) 12-04-2011 6:58 AM

Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler 12-02-2011 8:01 AM

I think the rational parts of our brain, the more recentlty evolved parts, can overide the more primitive emotions of what we call morality so that it is possible for normal people to, say, kill when they are able to rationalise it.

But also because morality may actually be a physical sense - not just an idea or an ideal that is learnt - that has neurones associated with it, it will vary amongst individuals and sometimes simply be missing. So a psychopath can do things that normal people can not.

For example when psychopaths are given moral puzzles to solve, they produce very effective utilitarian solutions that normal people can't - they actually would be able to suffocate the crying baby in order to stop the Nazis finding the group of fleeing Jews.

I don't know where all this is taking me, I still waiting for either a neurologist or a christian philosopher to put me right. Meanwhile, I'll keep rambling.

Message 129 of 129 (643814) 12-12-2011 4:24 AM

I've spent an hour or so googling but so far found little evidence of brain damage causing philanthropy and good works.

I wonder if our default natural state is the selfish animal one and that pretty much all incidents that knock out chunks of our moral network just knock out the controls that prevent us behaving badly.