Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law are derived from a principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, [1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or ...
In criminal law, mens rea (/ ˈ m ɛ n z ˈ r eɪ ə /; Law Latin for "guilty mind" [1]) is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty.
If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist. But intentional states of consciousness do exist. Therefore, God exists. Peter Kreeft has put forward a deductive form of the argument from consciousness [7] based upon the intelligibility of the universe despite the limitations of our minds. He phrases it deductively as ...
La Conscience (by Victor Hugo), illustration by François Chifflart (1825–1901) When a defendant acts guilty, some of their actions reveal evidence of deceit, a consciousness of guilt, [4] [5] and their guilty state of mind. [7] This may imply that the defendant committed, or intended to commit, a crime.
The book consists of 365 pages and is structured in three main parts: "God, Gods, and the World," "Being, Consciousness, Bliss," and "The Reality of God." The three chapters contained in the second part constitute the bulk of the book's arguments, which center on ontology, philosophy of mind, and transcendental teleology. Hart utilizes and ...
In law, there is a known exception to the assumption that moral culpability lies in either individual character or freely willed acts. The insanity defense – or its corollary, diminished responsibility (a sort of appeal to the fallacy of the single cause) – can be used to argue that the guilty deed was not the product of a guilty mind. [17]
Guilt can be viewed in terms of constructiveness versus destructiveness: "constructive guilt" is focused on forgiving one's ethical lapses and changing one's behavior, while "destructive guilt" remains mired in self-loathing and does not emphasize learning from one's wrongdoings and moving ahead with life.
Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves.