El Derecho en su sentido más amplio y la Justicia se han intentado analizar y explicar a través de muy distintas disciplinas, tales como la historia, la religión, la lógica, la sociología o la psicología.
La pregunta que nos formulamos los humanos (algunos, todo sea dicho) es por qué el Derecho es como es.
Estas meditaciones son, sin duda, fruto del carácter racional del ser humano porque intenta reconfortar su sed de conocimiento. Pero tengo la impresión de que esa búsqueda de explicaciones tiene también por objeto aumentar su seguridad. Lo pienso porque, buscando explicación a todo aquello que nos rodea, los seres humanos intentamos predecir la interacción de los fenómenos en nuestra vida. Y ello es una muestra de nuestro instinto de autoprotección (nos sentiremos más seguros si conocemos los riesgos que nos acechan, para así poderles hacer frente o, al menos, buscar los mecanismos de protección adecuados).
Lo curioso de la cuestión es que el Derecho, la Justicia, no es algo con lo que nos hayamos encontrado en el planeta tierra (como la lluvia, los terremotos o las estaciones). El Derecho es algo que hemos creado los propios seres humanos. Luego, analizando los orígenes o razones del Derecho, en realidad, nos estamos analizando a nosotros mismos.
Acabo de leer el artículo publicado en la University of Illinois Law Review "Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience" (Pardo, Michael S. and Patterson, Dennis, Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience (February 6, 2009). University of Illinois Law Review, 2010; U of Alabama Public Law Research Paper No. 1338763. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1338763). Se explican en este artículo las aportaciones que al estudio del Derecho pueden (y están haciendo) nuevas ciencias y, más concretamente, la neurociencia.
Entre otras cosas de máximo interés, se explica que:
"Goodenough (Oliver R.Goodenough, Mapping Cortical Areas Associated with Legal Reasoning and Moral Intuition, 41 JURIMETRICS J. 420,2001) appeals to different brain locations to explain different types of decision-making. The central insight of the modular theory of mind is that mental processes occur in different parts of the brain. In fact, “a separation exists in the brain” such that different cortical areas of the brain perform different functions. If we embrace the thesis of the modularity of mind, what jurisprudential insights will we gain? Locating the functions for law and moral reasoning, Goodenough believes, will be the key to greater insight into law and our thinking in law. He cites a variety of authorities for the proposition that our thinking about justice occurs in one cortical area and rule-based application of law is located in another. Accordingly, Goodenough concludes that “[s]cience has developed tools that can be used to test the theory that justice-based thinking occurs separately from rulebased reasoning.” How do they work?
In thinking about justice we are aided by “a nonverbal algorithm that is programmed by some mixture of genetic blueprint, cultural heritage, and personal experience.” By contrast, word-based systems of thought, such as law, actuate “an interpreter module.” In legal activities such as the drafting of contracts, statutes, and regulations, the interpreter module serves to process legal materials through “a wordbased formula, [employing] the implicit structural logic of the unarticulated system in which the [legal] norm is generated.
Accordingly, Goodenough concludes that “[s]cience has developed tools that can be used to test the theory that justice-based thinking occurs separately from rulebased reasoning.”How do they work? In thinking about justice we are aided by “a nonverbal algorithm that is programmed by some mixture of genetic blueprint, cultural heritage, and personal experience.” By contrast, word-based systems of thought, such as law, actuate “an interpreter module.” In legal activities such as the drafting of contracts, statutes, and regulations, the interpreter module serves to process legal materials through “a wordbased formula, [employing] the implicit structural logic of the unarticulated system in which the [legal] norm is generated.”
In thinking about justice we are aided by “a nonverbal algorithm that is programmed by some mixture of genetic blueprint, cultural heritage, and personal experience.” By contrast, word-based systems of thought, such as law, actuate “an interpreter module.” In legal activities such as the drafting of contracts, statutes, and regulations, the interpreter module serves to process legal materials through “a wordbased formula, [employing] the implicit structural logic of the unarticulated system in which the [legal] norm is generated.
Accordingly, Goodenough concludes that “[s]cience has developed tools that can be used to test the theory that justice-based thinking occurs separately from rulebased reasoning.”How do they work? In thinking about justice we are aided by “a nonverbal algorithm that is programmed by some mixture of genetic blueprint, cultural heritage, and personal experience.” By contrast, word-based systems of thought, such as law, actuate “an interpreter module.” In legal activities such as the drafting of contracts, statutes, and regulations, the interpreter module serves to process legal materials through “a wordbased formula, [employing] the implicit structural logic of the unarticulated system in which the [legal] norm is generated.”
Es decir, el Derecho (el pensamiento jurídico) podría localizarse en determinadas zonas corticales cerebrales. El Derecho (incluida la actividad jurídica) es una actividad mental. Asombroso. Como igual de asombroso fue para mí la lectura del libro "La Conexión divina", de Francisco J Rica, quien analizaba la posible base neurológica de las experiencias místicas o trascendentales del ser humano, lo que alguien ha llamado "la partícula o gen divino".
Si este enfoque del conocimiento jurídico progresa y llega a ver confirmados sus primeros pasos, tal vez algún día podamos incluso prever cómo aplicarán los jueces el Derecho a un caso concreto (luego, estaremos, o nos sentiremos, más protegidos frente a la variabilidad). Yendo más allá, incluso el Estado podría llevar a cabo un proceso de selección de los jueces mediante análisis neurológicos previos, permitiendo el acceso sólo a aquellos que superen el standard neuronal que fije el Estado.
Ya lo dicen los sabios: la felicidad (y la Justicia, añado yo) no hay que buscarla en territorios lejanos, sino dentro de uno mismo.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario