>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-jurisprudence/New &humanities nonsense just dropped. Can’t believe this is a real field.Legal philosophers used to argue about the nature of law, justice, and morality from their armchairs. Now the big brain move is to ask random people on Xitter what they intuit about a hypotheticals.>our shared concept of causation...Shared with who? Your sample of 200 undergrads? LMAO.They spend pages debating if they're supplementing or replacing traditional philosophy. The cope is astronomical. While doing psychology surveys with extra steps.The ultimate goal seems to be making law reflect the NPC's understanding.
>>18244110>The ultimate goal seems to be making law reflect the NPC's understanding.the cornerstone of tort law is the idea of "reasonableness", a person is liable for negligence if they behave in an unreasonable way and someone is harmed as a result. But what is reasonable is determined by the jury, just a group of ordinary people.Since you seem interested in this, you should read the common law by Oliver Wendell Holmes if you haven'thttps://www.gutenberg.org/files/2449/2449-h/2449-h.htm
Lay people should never be consulted about anything relating to the law. Having them find facts on a jury is already pushing it.
>>18244124why not? The law will directly impact them.
>>18244129Most lay people are too low IQ or ignorant to actually understand most legal concepts. Asking them what they think about causation, for example, is like asking a toddler what he thinks about taxes. Lawyers and judges struggle with some concepts as it is, let alone lay people. Half of a lawyer’s job in many circumstances is just breaking down these concepts in a bite-sized way for a lay person to kind of get it. Even then it’s not always effective and other lay considerations overpower the legal principle in a client's or jury member’s mental calculations. The philosophical underpinnings of legal concepts should be discussed and debated by people fully immersed in and familiar with the topic.
>>18244122>>18244129Wakanda will never exist.
>>18244110>But much of experimental jurisprudence scholarship treats correspondence between ordinary and legal concepts as, at most, offering (defeasible) reasons for law to use the ordinary concepts. Many scholars ultimately conclude that the lay view should be rejected. For instance, Sommers (2020) argues that the law should not simply adopt the lay concept of consent (see §2.2.4), and Kneer and Bourgeois-Gironde (2017) argue that the lay notion of intent reflects bias, one that the law should seek to eliminate (see §2.2.1)You dumb /pol/trannys are criticizing something which actually is going for you, not against you.Doesn't matter because lawfags overstepped and decided all social progress was going to come from anti-democratic rulings off the bench (instead of the harder and correct way, via gradually fostering consent) and now you're being gutted in America like in Israel and soon the rest of the world.Sad!
