Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T00:55:12.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Love, Ethics, Technology, and Neuroenhancement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2015

DAVID FERRARO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 486 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. The medicalization of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2015;24:323–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Savulescu, J, Earp, BD. Neuroreductionism about sex and love. Think: A Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 2014;13(38):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Earp, BD, Wudarczyk, OA, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. If I could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the ethics of a chemical breakup. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See note 1, Earp et al. 2015.

5. See note 3, Earp et al. 2013.

6. These evolutionary imperatives—assumed by both the preceding authors and other proponents of neuroenhancement—tend to misuse the concept of evolution itself. Where evolutionary theory functions as an explanation of change, it is here, repeatedly, invoked as teleology. This is a significant problem in the psy-disciplines, in which bioreductionism not only is commonplace but is also based on a mishandling of the biology itself. Aristotle distinguished four causes; contemporary psychiatry wishes to shoehorn biology into each of them. It is as if there are no alternatives between the most naïve Cartesian dualism and the crude materialism favored by the present authors. Descartes was obviously wrong on the pineal gland, but he had some messages about subjectivity that the psy-disciplines would do well to heed.

7. Barthes R. A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments. Howard R, trans. London: Vintage; 2002 (1977).

8. I.e., “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

9. Heidegger, M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Lovitt W, trans. New York: Harper Perennial; 1977.Google Scholar

10. See note 1, Earp et al. 2015, at 329.

11. Žižek, S. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso; 1989.Google Scholar

12. See note 3, Earp et al. 2013, at 5-6.

13. Kaminsky, A. Neuroenhancement of human relationships. Harcourt Health 2013 Aug 23Google Scholar; available at http://www.harcourthealth.com/neuroenhancement-of-human-relationships/ (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).