A neurociência da moralidade na tomada de decisões jurídicas complexas e no desenho de políticas públicas

Erik Navarro

Resumen


O presente artigo trata da utilização da neurociência da moralidade (e do pragmatismo profundo, daí decalcado) como guia filosófico no desenho de políticas públicas. As matrizes teóricas aqui utilizadas são a economia do bem-estar, a análise econômica do direito e o utilitarismo. Relatando diversos experimentos neurocientíficos, demonstraremos como nosso cérebro incide sistematicamente em erros de julgamento que fazem crer na utilização preponderante de princípios de justiça no desenho de políticas públicas, em detrimento do aumento do bem-estar social. Inicialmente apresentaremos o novo campo filosófico conhecido como neurociência da moralidade. Após, descreveremos a forma dual de funcionamento do cérebro, demonstrando a origem de nossos instintos e sentimentos de justiça. Finalmente, revelaremos como o pragmatismo pode auxiliar no debate de questões difíceis para o desenho correto de políticas públicas, considerando a forma dual de funcionamento da mente, bem como os erros cognitivos a que estamos sujeitos, algo inédito no direito brasileiro. Concluiremos que teorias que conferem caráter preponderante a princípios de justiça nada mais são do que racionalizações de julgamentos intuitivos e imprecisos de nosso cérebro, de modo que devem ceder espaço para premissas utilitaristas no desenho de políticas públicas, que, por sua vez, precisam ser focadas exclusivamente no aumento do bem-estar social.

Palabras clave


Direito. Neurociência. Economia. Bem-estar Social.

Texto completo:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Referencias


BARON, J.; GREENE, J. D. Determinants of Insensitivity to Quantity in Valuation of Public Goods: Contribution, Warm Glow, Budget Constraints, Availability, and Prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, v. 2, n. 2, p. 107-125, 1996.

BARRETT, H. Clark et al. Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. PNAS, v. 113, n. 17, abr. 2016.

BECHARA, Antonie et al. Insensitivity to Future Consequences Following Damage to Human Prefrontal Cortex. Cognition, v. 50, p. 7-15, 1994.

BLAIR, R. J. R. A Cognitive Developmental Approach to Morality: Investigating the Psychopath. Cognition, v. 57, p. 1-29, 1995.

BOTVINICK, Matthew M. et al. Conflict Monitoring and Cognitive Control. Psychological Review, v. 108, n. 3, p. 624-652, 2001.

CALABRESI, Guido. The Future of Law and Economics. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2016.

COHEN, Jonathan D.; MILLER, Earl K. An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, v. 24, p. 167-202, 2001.

CUSHMAN, F.; GAFFEY, A.; GRAY, K.; MENDES, W. B. Simulating Murder: The Aversion to Harmful Action. Emotion, v. 12, n 1, p. 2-7, 2012. Disponível em: https://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/docs/cushman_gray_gaffey&mendes_2012.pdf. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2017.

CUSHMAN, F.; GREENE, J. D. The Philosopher in the Theater. In: MIKULINCER, M.; SHAVER, P. R. (Eds.). Social Psychology of Morality: The Origins of Good and Evil. APA, 2011. Disponível em: http:// cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/docs/cushman&greene_2011b.pdf. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

CUSHMAN, F. et al. Judgment Before Principle: Engagement of the Frontoparietal Control Network in Condemning Harms of Omission. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, v. 7, n. 8, p. 888-895, nov. 2012.

CUSHMAN, F.; YOUNG, L.; HAUSER, M. The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment: Testing Three Principles of Harm. Psychology Science, v. 17, n. 12, p. 1.082-1.089, 2006.

DAMASIO, Antônio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Rationality and the Human Brain. New York: Penguim; Grosset, 1994. [Kindle].

DESVOUSGES, William H. et al. Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. 2. ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI, 2010. Disponível em: https://www.rti/ org/sites/default/files/resources/bk-0001-1009_web.pdf. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

FOOT, Philippa. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. Oxford Review, n. 5, p. 5-15, 1967.

FRANKISH, Keith. Dual-Process and Dual-System Theories of Reasoning. Philosophy Compass, v. 5, n. 10, p. 914-926, 2010.

GAZZANIGA, Michael. One Brain or Two? The Split Brain in Man. Scientific American, v. 217, n. 2, p. 24- 29, 1967.

GICO Jr., Ivo. Anarquismo Judicial e Segurança Jurídica. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, v.5, número especial, p. 480-500, 2015.

GREENE, Joshua D. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York: Penguin Books, 2013.

GREENE, Joshua D. The Rat-a-gorical Imperative: Moral Intuition and the Limits of Affective Learning. Cognition, no prelo [aceito 6 mar. 2017]. Disponível em: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb000c/t/594d6a53a5790aaf1207eb76/1498245716080/greene-rat-a-goricalcogn-17.pdf. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

GREENE, Joshua D. et al. Cognitive Load Selectively Interferes with Utilitarian Moral Judgment. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, v. 22, n. 8, p. 1.888-1.899, jun. 2008.

GREENE, Joshua D. et al. The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron, v. 44, p. 389-400, 14 out. 2004.

GREENE, Joshua D. et al. An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, v. 293, n. 5.537, p. 2.105-2.108, set. 2001.

HAUSER, Marc et al. A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justifications. Mind & Language, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-21, fev. 2007.

HUANG, Bert I. Book Review: Law and Moral Dilemmas. Harvard Law Review, v. 130, p. 659-699, dez. 2016.

KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Thinking: fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. [Kindle].

KAHNEMAN, Daniel; SHANE Frederick. Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. In: GILOVICH, Thomas; GRIFFIN, Dale; KAHNEMAN, Daniel (Eds.). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002. p. 49-81.

KANT, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Tradução: Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. [Kindle: The ultimate collected works of 14 books].

KAPLOW, Louis; SHAVELL, Steven. Fairness Versus Welfare. Harvard Law Review, v. 114, n. 4, p. 961-1.390, fev. 2001.

LENZ, Gabriel S.; LAWSON, Chappell. Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance. American Journal of Political Science, v. 55, n. 3, p. 574-589, jul. 2011.

MCINTYRE, Alison. Doctrine of Double Effect. In: ZALTA, Edward N. (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, inverno 2014. Disponível em: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/double-effect. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

MENDEZ, Mário F.; ANDERSON, E.; SHAPIRA, J. S. An Investigation of Moral Judgement in Frontotemporal Dementia. Cognitive Behavioral Neurology, v. 18, n. 4, p. 193-197, dez. 2005.

MIKHAIL, John. Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawl’s Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2011. [Kindle].

MILL, John Stuart. Utilitarianism and the 1896 Speech on Capital Punishment. 2. ed., Indianápolis: George Sher, 2001. [Kindle].

MOREIRA, José Carlos Barbosa. As reformas do Código de Processo Civil: condições de uma avaliação objetiva. In: Temas de Direito Processual Civil. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1997, p. 81-94. [6. série].

MORETTO, Giovanna et al. A psychophysiological investigation of moral judgment after ventromedial prefrontal damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, v. 22, n. 8, p. 1.888-1.899, 2009.

MORRIS, Ian. Why the West Rules: For Now: The Patterns of History and What They Reveal About the Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. [Kindle].

NEARY, Walter. Personal Decisions Exercise the Emotional Part of the Brain, 2001. Disponível em: http://www. washington.edu/news/2001/11/26/personal-decisions-exercise-the-emotional-part-of-the-brain. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

NEERGAARD, L. Brain Scan Shows Emotion in Decisions. Washington Post, set. 2001.

NOWAK, Martin A. Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science, v. 314, n. 5.805, p. 1.560-1.563, 8 dez. 2006. Disponível em: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

PAHAIA, Neeru et al. Dirty Work, Clean Hands: The Moral Psychology of Indirect Agency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Disponível em: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4264764. Acesso em: 16 fev. 2018.

PAXTON, Joseph M.; UNGAR, Leo; GREENE, Joshua D. Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment. Cognitive Science, v. 36, n. 1, p. 163-177, jan./fev. 2012.

PINKER, Steven. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature. New York: Penguin, 2007. [Kindle].

POSNER, Richard A. Law, Pragmatism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University, 2003.

ROZENBLIT, Leonid; KEIL, Frank. The Misunderstood Limits of Folk Science: An Illusion of Explanatory Depth. Cognitive Science, v. 26, n. 5, p. 521-562, set. 2002.

SANDEL, Michael. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.

SANTANA, Héctor Valverde. Análise econômica do direito: a eficiência da norma jurídica na prevenção e reparação de danos sofridos pelo consumidor. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, v.4, n. 1, p. 224-337, 2014.

SCHWITZGEBEL, Eric; CUSHMAN, Fiery. Expertise in Moral Reasoning? Order Effects on Moral Judgment in Professional Philosophers and Non-Philosophers. Mind & Language, v. 27, p. 135-153, 2012.

SILVA, Juvêncio Borges; JUCATELLI, João Paulo. Judicialização da saúde, ativismo judicial e o consequente desequilíbrio do orçamento público. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, v.7, n. 1, p. 99-116, 2017.

STANOVICH, Keith E.; WEST, Richard F. Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 23, n. 5, p. 645-726, out. 2000.

STUSS, D. T.; ALEXANDER, M. P.; LIEBERMAN, A.; LEVINE, H. An Extraordinary Form of Confabulation. Neurology, v. 28, n. 11, p. 1.166-1.172, nov. 1978.

SUTER, Renata S.; HERTWIG, Ralph. Time and Moral Judgment. Cognition, v. 119, n. 3, p. 454-458, jun. 2011.

THOMAS, Bradley C. et al. Arrested Development: Early Prefrontal Lesions Impair the Maturation of Moral Judgement. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, v. 137, n. 4, p. 1.254-1.261, abr. 2014.

THOMAS, Bradley C.; CROFT, Katie E.; TRANEL, Daniel. Harming Kin to Save Strangers: Further Evidence for Abnormally Utilitarian Moral Judgments after Ventromedial Prefrontal Damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, v. 23, n. 9, p. 2.186-2.196, set. 2011.

THOMSON, Judith. Kamm on the Trolley Problems. In: KAMM, F. M. The Trolley Problem Mysteries. Oxford: Oxford University, 2016, p. 113-133. [Kindle].

THOMSON, Judith. Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem. Monist: Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, v. 59, n. 2, p. 204-217, 1976.

THOMSON, Judith. The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, v. 94, n. 6, p. 1.395-1.415, maio 1985.

TODOROV, Alexander; BARON, Sean G.; OOSTERHOF Nikolaas N. Evaluating Face Trustworthiness: a Model Based Approach. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, v. 3, n. 2, p. 119-127, jun. 2008.

TODOROV, Alexander et al. Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes. Science, v. 308, n. 5.728, p. 1.623-1.626, 10 jun. 2005.

TODOROV, Alexander; PAKRASHI, Manish; OOSTERHOF Nikolaas N. Evaluating Faces on Trustworthiness after Minimal Time Exposure. Social Cognition, v. 27, n. 6, p. 813-833, 2009.

XIANG, Xin. Would the Buddha Push the Man Off the Footbridge?: Systematic Variations in the Moral Judgment and Punishment Tendencies of Han Chinese, Tibetans and Americans. 2014. Monografia--(Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2014.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v8i2.5349

ISSN 2179-8338 (impresso) - ISSN 2236-1677 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia