The Medicalization of Love and Narrow and Broad Conceptions of Human Well-Being
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2015
Would a “medicalization” of love be a “good” or “bad” form of medicalization? In discussing this question, Earp, Sandberg, and Savulescu primarily focus on the potential positive and negative consequences of turning love into a medical issue. But it can also be asked whether there is something intrinsically regrettable about medicalizing love. It is argued here that the medicalization of love can be seen as an “evaluative category mistake”: it treats a core human value (love) as if it were mainly a means to other ends (viz. physical health and hedonic well-being). It is also argued that Earp et al’s closing argument (that a scientific perspective on love actually adds more value to love) can be seen as involving another evaluative category mistake: it treats an object of desire and practical interest (namely, love) as if it mainly were an object of scientific contemplation and theoretical interest. It is concluded that, to relate love to health and well-being in a more satisfying way, we should construe the latter two in broader ways, whereby love is itself a component or element of human flourishing.
- Departments and Columns
- Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 337 - 346
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
2. Savulescu, J, Sandberg, A. Neuroenhancement of love and marriage. Neuroethics 2008;1(1):31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Persson, I, Savulescu, J. Unfit for the Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012, at 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. See note 2, Savulescu, Sandberg 2008, at 42.
5. Quoted in Parens E. On good and bad forms of medicalization. Bioethics 2011;27(1):28–35, at 33.
6. Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. The medicalization of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2015;24(3):323–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. See note 5, Parens 2011.
8. Fisher, H. Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York: Henry Holt; 2014.Google Scholar
9. 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 2013:2–17, at 7.Google Scholar
10. See note 6, Earp et al. 2015, at 325.
11. See note 2, Savulescu, Sandberg 2008, at 34.
12. See note 6, Earp et al. 2015, at 326–31.
13. See note 6, Earp et al. 2015.
14. See note 5, Parens 2011, at 2.
15. Scanlon, TM. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1998, at 99.Google Scholar
16. See note 15, Scanlon 1998.
17. Mill, JS. Utilitarianism. In: Robson, JM, ed. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1963:203–59.Google Scholar
18. Cf. Book 1 of a work by Marcus Tullio Cicero: Cicero MT. On Duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
19. See note 6, Earp et al. 2015, at 332.
20. See note 6, Earp et al. 2015, at 332–333.
21. I discuss this last point at greater length in Nyholm S. Love troubles: Human attachment and biomedical enhancements. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2015;32(2):190–202.
23. Sen, A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, M, Sen, A, eds. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
24. Nussbaum, M. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. See note 24, Nussbaum 2011. Cf. Nussbaum M. Human functioning and social justice. Political Theory 1992;20:202–46.
26. Protasi S. Loving people for who they are (even when they don’t love you back). European Journal of Philosophy; forthcoming.
27. Kolodny N. Love as valuing a relationship. Philosophical Review 2003;112(2):135–89.
28. See note 21, Nyholm 2015.