Is there such a thing as a love drug? Reply to McGee

Journal article

Over the past few years, we and our colleagues have been exploring the ethical implications of what we call “love drugs” and “anti-love drugs.” We use these terms informally to refer to “current, near-future, and more speculative distant-future technologies that would enhance or diminish, respectively, the romantic bond between couples engaged in a relationship” (Earp, Sandberg, and Savulescu in press). In a recent “qualified defense” of our work, Andrew McGee (in press) suggests that if we would only stop using the word “love” so expansively, our ethical proposals might gain more traction. Specifically, he argues that “many of the putative instances of love” that we discuss in our papers “are not in fact instances of love at all” but are rather what he describes as “unhealthy or treatable obsessions.” By more carefully distinguishing between the two, he suggests, “there is much more likely to be less concern about medicalization and authenticity” (emphasis his) in the case of pharmaceutical or other biotechnological interventions into the latter.

Authors: Savulescu, J; Earp, B

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press
• Journal: Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology
• Volume: 23
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 93-96
• Publication date: 2016-01-01
• Acceptance date: 2016-07-16
• DOI: 10.1353/ppp.2016.0007
• EISSN: 1086-3303
• ISSN: 1071-6076