Can A Crime be Scientifically Justified
From time immemorial, humanity has been constantly striving to understand human behavior. In the past, philosophy played its role, and as science progresses, its efforts are turning to a metaphysical approach.
When genes were first discovered, geneticists believed they could explain people’s personality and behavior. However, it was quite far from understanding a person’s personality and behavior with genes.
Looking at the scientific explanation of crime-related behavior, it may feel that scientific facts justify and support their behavior, but this is a naturalistic fallacy.
In fact, the results obtained from efforts to understand human behavior in a brain science have explained human behavior quite clearly and have improved understanding of human behavior.
In particular, crime-related behaviors are sometimes explained through brain science. Professor Anderson of New York University has studied the relationship between sex and violence. According to this, the circuit of the brain responsible for sex and the circuit of the brain responsible for violence are anatomically attached and work in a way that suppresses each other. However, if this circuit that restrains each other is broken, and furthermore, if the circuit is formed in a way that stimulates each other, the violent behavior of sex offenders who show violent behavior could be explained to some extent. Between sex and violence.
Looking at the scientific explanations of crime-related behaviors, you can feel that scientific facts justify and support their behavior.
However, this is guilty of naturalistic errors.
The naturalistic error is’to draw out a proposition on moral value judgment based on a proposition on fact’. In other words, it is naturalistic error that gives legitimacy and justification to an action based on scientific facts.
For example, the argument that drinking alcohol obscures judgment is a scientific fact, and is included in this example.
And even in the issue of the abolition of Australian made, which was once a hot issue, biologically, maternal tracking is possible through mitochondrial DNA, but paternal tracking is not possible.Therefore, it is argued that it is correct to follow the mother’s last name rather than the father’s last name. It is an example of a naturalistic error that draws a proposition on moral value judgment as a basis.
The following example shows why it is dangerous to commit naturalistic errors and why you should be wary.
The theory of evolution says that the purpose of life of all animals is to spread their genes widely, and even explains human behavior based on this. Evolutionary theory explains that all males, tend to prefer young females who can bear and raise their offspring well, and this mechanism is why the victims of sexual crimes are mostly young women.
At this time, the naturalistic error leads to a terrifying proposition that’the behavior of sex offenders cannot be helped because of their instinct.’ But sex crimes, no matter what, should not be justified.
People are prone to naturalistic errors when they encounter brain science facts that can explain a person’s behavior. It is because if you know what causal relationship and mechanism their actions came from, you can understand their actions, and go one step further, and it is easy to extend your thoughts from the categories of’to understand’ and’good’ to the categories of’right’.
But what these scientific propositions can do should be the lines that help us understand a phenomenon, and always remember that ‘to understand’ does not always be ‘right’.
Even if we understand the mechanism by which violent sex offenders’ behavior came about, their actions cannot be justified, and even if it is understood that something they did after drinking alcohol could have been due to impaired judgment, that could not be an indulgence. will be.
Living naturally and instinctively is a good thing. Eating when you want to eat, sleeping when you want to sleep, and living the way you feel is a way to live happily. However, it only makes sense when it is within the bounds of the rules we set. Let’s think again why we are humans. Isn’t it the difference between animals and humans if we live by not being driven by our instincts and living by the rules we set?
That is why, after committing a crime, saying, ‘My brain is so formed, I can’t help it’, is nothing more than a naturalistic error and forgetting why humans are different from animals.
Can a Crime be Scientifically Justified - /10