Abstract

AbstractResearch in the field of heuristics and biases has demonstrated that human reasoning processes are often non-normative. Specifically, such research demonstrates that human reasoning processes often rely upon heuristics and are subject to a wide variety of biases. These, in turn, can lead to errors in judgment which may impact human behavior. This chapter argues that this impact cannot be ignored when dealing with questions of moral and legal responsibility. It argues that when heuristic reasoning has an impact upon human judgment and decision-making, this fact can ultimately negate moral culpability. Furthermore, it argues that where legal responsibility is stipulated upon moral responsibility, the findings of Bias Research must also inform the imposition of legal responsibility. Specifically, it argues that in light of Bias Research, the current reasonable person standard employed in negligence offences is unjustifiable and must be replaced with a standard of responsibility that better reflects individual culpability.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call