Aleš Novak, Law, Reason, and Emotion: The Philosophical Underpinnings

Emotions and Adjudication

Aleš Novak, Law, Reason, and Emotion: The Philosophical Underpinnings

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.

1

Law and emotion (1)

1 / 3

In what way does Hume's treatment of emotions depart from the consensus?

Hume offers a first neuroscientific account of the impact emotions have on our movement.

Hume has proven that emotions are really rational and that the whole reason-emotions divide is fictional.

Hume argues that emotions control and direct our reason.

2 / 3

How does the overwhelming majority of philosophers discussed in the video lecture regard emotions?

They see emotions as opposed to reason and therefore inferior to it.

They regard emotions as intuitive responses that channel our subconscious and therefore deeper understanding of reality.

They don't address the topic.

3 / 3

How would you characterise the prevailing understanding of the relationship between law and emotions?

Emotions are recognised as an indispensable part of the legal landscape.

Emotions are considered to be less rational and should be clearly separated from law.

Emotions are sometimes accepted as more important factors in legal decision-making that is reasonable analysis.

Your score is

0

Law and emotion (2)

1 / 3

Aristotel has defined law as "reason free from all passion". That implies that:

Emotions can also be reasonable, if kept in moderation.

Law is inherently reasonable and that emotions have no place in law.

Law is meaningless without passion.

2 / 3

We can often observe that legal proceedings are structured so that:

only the victims and prosecutors can freely express emotions, as the court proceedings should be a place to express anger, frustration and pain.

emotions are given a central place in the courtroom and judges are encouraged to express them as often as they can.

the display of emotions is systematically kept to a minimum.

3 / 3

The prevailing understanding is that legal reasoning

should combine reason and emotions (or intuition).

should be a dispassionate application of law to the facts.

should be based on reason, but only so long as the result would be in accordance with compassion.

Your score is

Emotions and Adjudication

Aleš Novak, Law, Reason, and Emotion: The Philosophical Underpinnings

Lecture Part 1

Part 2

Quiz 1

Quiz 2