When a court says "the law made me decide this way", what exactly is it claiming — and how could anyone check? I work where philosophy of law, moral philosophy and philosophy of religion meet: on what makes a judicial decision genuinely reasoned rather than arbitrary, on where duties come from and to whom we answer, and on how religious traditions claim to be corrected by something they did not make.
Master's student in Law at Universidade Estácio de Sá (UNESA, Rio de Janeiro), research line Access to Justice and Effectiveness of Procedure, with a project on the criteriology of judicial decisions (constitutive conditions, verifiable reasoning and the limits of judicial intervention). Practising criminal and civil lawyer in Brazil since 2015 (OAB/SC 41.212), including cases before the STJ and STF — so the theory is tested against real courtrooms, including jury trials. Member of ABRACRIM (Associação Brasileira dos Advogados Criminalistas — Brazilian Association of Criminal Lawyers) since 2026.
Research lines:
• Theory of judicial decision-making, legal reasoning and adjudication (art. 489 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure; path dependence in Supreme Court case law; legislative omission)
• Moral philosophy and philosophy of normativity (the ground of responsibility, participation, provenance and direction of duty, the ethics of exiting sustaining positions)
• Philosophy of religion and religious studies (the problem of evil, Feuerbach, narrative teleology, religious freedom, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor)
• Criminology, jury trials, political myths and society
Author of the books "O amanhã é possível? Por uma nova filosofia da normatividade" and "A quem respondemos?" (Autografia, Rio de Janeiro, 2026), book chapters in English and more than twenty journal articles.
Open to collaborations, co-authored papers, research groups, invited talks and graduate opportunities — feel free to get in touch.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5447-0550 · Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/2467496149913328
