Premium
Real‐World Love Drugs: Reply to N yholm
Author(s) -
Naar Hichem
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of applied philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.339
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1468-5930
pISSN - 0264-3758
DOI - 10.1111/japp.12141
Subject(s) - order (exchange) , philosophy of love , argument (complex analysis) , romance , sort , value (mathematics) , epistemology , philosophy , true love , quality (philosophy) , sociology , social psychology , aesthetics , psychology , psychoanalysis , computer science , literature , business , art , medicine , finance , machine learning , information retrieval
In a recent article, S ven N yholm argues that the use of biomedical enhancements ( BE ) in our romantic relationships would fail to secure the final value we attribute to love. On N yholm's view, one thing we desire for its own sake is to be at the origin of the love others have for us. The satisfaction of this desire, he argues, is incompatible with the use of BE insofar as they are responsible for the attachment characteristic of love. In particular, the use of BE in order to create and sustain the sort of attachment characteristic of love would be less desirable than the creation and sustainment of it by more ordinary means. If one needs such enhancements in order for one's love to be created or sustained, then one's love is of lesser quality than the love we want. In this reply, I raise doubts about the argument.