Cognitive negligence, or negligence in relation to beliefs, has two basic forms. An actor might be unreasonably ignorant or inadvertent in failing to form any belief about a relevant matter, when he should have formed a belief (Consider George above. )Or the actor might form a definite belief, but that belief might be unreasonably mistaken. (Consider Frank, above. )I will use the term cognitive negligence for both negligent inadvertence(when the actor unreasonably fails to advert to a risk or to an existing fact) and negligent mistake (when the actor forms the unreasonable and incorrect belief that the risk or fact does not exist). In either case, the actor is negligent for not forming a belief that he reasonably should have formed. 9 The highly influential Model Penal Code emphasizes a cognitive conception of negligence. Under the Code, negligence is the least"culpable" category of four " culpability terms. In order of increasing "culpability, with higher punishment potentially warranted for each increment, the categories are negligence, recklessness, knowledge, and purpose. In essence, a negligent general intent, mistake of fact, the mens rea for manslaughter, and requirements of self-defense 8 Or consider Claude: suppose he switched lanes on a highway without considering the possibility that someone was in his blind spot, and thus without realizing that his action posed a substantial risk of harm Inadvertence" and"mistake" are two basic categories of cognitive deficiency, i.e. of the actor failing to form a belief that he should have formed. But other categories also exist, such as agnosticism. See Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B U. L. Rev. 463, 540 (1992) The Israeli Criminal Code appears to be similar in this respect Negligence means unawareness of the nature of the act, of the existence of the circumstances or of the possibility of consequences of the act being brought about, such nature, circumstances and consequences being ingredients of the offence, when a reasonable person could, in the circumstances of the case, have been aware of it Israeli Penal Code $21(a)(1995)(unauthorized English translation), reported at 30 Israel L. Rev. 1, 14(1996). However, a proviso to this section acknowledges a"conduct negligence requirement as Provided that he possibility of the consequences being brought is not a reasonable risk Page 7 of 57 Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02Cognitive negligence, or negligence in relation to beliefs, has two basic forms. An actor might be unreasonably ignorant or inadvertent in failing to form any belief about a relevant matter, when he should have formed a belief. (Consider George above.8 ) Or the actor might form a definite belief, but that belief might be unreasonably mistaken. (Consider Frank, above.) I will use the term “cognitive negligence” for both negligent inadvertence (when the actor unreasonably fails to advert to a risk or to an existing fact) and negligent mistake (when the actor forms the unreasonable and incorrect belief that the risk or fact does not exist). In either case, the actor is negligent for not forming a belief that he reasonably should have formed.9 The highly influential Model Penal Code emphasizes a cognitive conception of negligence.10 Under the Code, negligence is the least “culpable” category of four “culpability” terms. In order of increasing “culpability,” with higher punishment potentially warranted for each increment, the categories are negligence, recklessness, knowledge, and purpose. In essence, a negligent general intent, mistake of fact, the mens rea for manslaughter, and objective requirements of self-defense. 8 Or consider Claude: suppose he switched lanes on a highway without considering the possibility that someone was in his blind spot, and thus without realizing that his action posed a substantial risk of harm. 9 ”Inadvertence” and “mistake” are two basic categories of cognitive deficiency, i.e., of the actor failing to form a belief that he should have formed. But other categories also exist, such as agnosticism. See Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U. L. Rev. 463, 540 (1992). 10 The Israeli Criminal Code appears to be similar in this respect: Negligence means unawareness of the nature of the act, of the existence of the circumstances or of the possibility of consequences of the act being brought about, such nature, circumstances and consequences being ingredients of the offence, when a reasonable person could, in the circumstances of the case, have been aware of it … Israeli Penal Code §21(a) (1995) (unauthorized English translation), reported at 30 Israel L. Rev. 1, 14 (1996). However, a proviso to this section acknowledges a “conduct negligence” requirement as well: Provided that – … (b) the possibility of the consequences being brought is not a reasonable risk. Page 7 of 57 Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02