| Description |
The relationship between law and philosophy is easily and often overstated. In this dissertation, I shed some light on the appropriate relationship between law and philosophy. The primary problem I identify is confusing a conceptual issue for a practical one. While theory can help clarify almost any problem, it has limits. And it is just as important to understand the limits as to understand the theory. This dissertation begins to identify some of those limits as they relate to legal issues. The dissertation explores the appropriate use of philosophy of language in arguments concerning how to interpret legal text;s, especially constitutions. It then points out the futility of attempting to clarify legal doctrine with more precise definitions, such as definitions of "religion" and "commercial speech." Finally, it explores the relationship between philosophical debates concerning free will and legal debates over the extent to which free will is relevant to legal accountability. The legal lesson is that current trends to treat brain science as dispositive of issues concerning legal accountability should be viewed with skepticism. In the end, I hope to convince the reader that, while the methods of philosophy are valuable to those analyzing law, the conclusions of philosophers are more likely to cause confusion than clarity if they are imported into the decisions judges make in interpreting law. For those engaged in interdisciplinary work in the two areas, the message is not "stop," but "proceed with caution." |
