Brian Earp wonders whether it might be right for someone in
certain situations to take an anti-love drug, see should
we take anti love drugs? For instance a battered woman in an
abusive relationship might take such a drug to help her restore her autonomy
and independence. Such an anti-love drug might be seen as an enhancement on a
welfarist account of enhancement, see frontiers
in neuroscience , because it enhances someone’s overall welfare. I have
suggested any such interventions should be treated with the greatest caution as
diminishing love involves great dangers. For instance in the above scenario the
woman in question might have children and diminishing her love for her abusive
partner might also diminish her love for her children. In this posting I will
argue that prior to considering any artificial means of diminishing love we
must first consider what love is. In particular I will suggest we should
consider whether love has some sort of structure.
What does
it mean to love? One way of examining what it means to love is to examine what
we can love. Someone might love a building, a particular piece of countryside
or being a scientist. A mother may love her children and her children love
their parents and siblings. Someone may love his friends. Lastly someone may
love her beloved in a romantic way. The question I want to pose is this, do we
love all these things in much the same way or are there varieties of love and
perhaps even completely different ways of loving? What is the nature of the
lover’s concern in all the above? According to Harry Frankfurt it is connected
to caring about,
“It is in
the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his beloved. That is, he
is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers when it is harmed.
Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies himself with what he
loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his beloved as his own.” (1)
If we agree
with Frankfurt then a lover’s concern is
compatible with him loving all the above. Someone might be harmed mentally if a
building he loves is burnt down. A mother may suffer if her child suffers. A
romantic lover will experience pleasure at the success of her beloved. The
above suggests that all forms of love have a common basis, the ability to care
about and identify with something, and this common basis rules out completely
different ways of loving.
Let us
accept that all forms of love must include Frankfurt ’s
basic idea of caring about and identification. Let us also accept that our
ancestors possessed the capacity for this basic form of love, they had the
capacity to love themselves and their offspring. At this point someone might
object that our ancient ancestors didn’t have the capacity to actively identify
themselves with what they loved. She might then proceed to argue even today most
people don’t actively identify themselves with what they love. In response Frankfurt might argue even if someone doesn’t actively
identify himself with what he loves that nonetheless he demonstrates his
identification by his satisfaction with what he loves (2). Bennett Helm would
argue someone identifies with what he loves by taking pride in what he loves
(3). Intuitively there are different forms of love. How might we account for
this diversity? Firstly as our ancestors’ lives became more complex the domain
of what they loved expanded. That is the basic form of love remained the same
but they started to love more things. Perhaps as their increased brains
expanded their cognitive powers they simply became aware of the need to love or
care about more things. Nonetheless they loved these things in the same way. Secondly
as their lives became more complex evolution added or grafted on additional
ways of loving onto this basic form. Love acquired some form of structure.
It might be
thought that whilst such considerations have considerable theoretical interest
they have no practical implications. Such a thought would be wrong. Let us
return to the taking of anti-love drugs to enhance an abused women’s life. Now
if love has changed simply by expanding the domain of love by cognitive means then
any such supposed enhancement would be likely to be counter productive. For as
I have remarked above any such so called enhancement would lead her to love her
children and things in general, including herself, less. In this context I
would suggest that the use of anti-love drugs would be unacceptable.
Intuitively
I do not love the place I live in the same way as I love my children. I can
feel empathy towards my children but it would be nonsensical to say I can feel
empathy for the place I live. Some forms of love might have a structure. This
structure consists of the basic capacity to care about and identify with something
or someone, plus the capacity to feel empathy. Earp considers love to be based on ancient neurochemical
systems that evolved to serve our ancestors' reproductive needs. I have suggested
that love has a wider basis. It follows these neurochemical systems served
wider needs, the need to love those things that helped us to survive.
Nonetheless let us accept that our basic capacity to love is based on a neurochemical
system. Let us also accept that our love is defined by a basic capacity to love
as I have suggested above plus the capacity to feel empathy. It is possible
that the neurochemical system underlying our capacity to feel empathy is
distinct from neurochemical system underlying our capacity for basic love. However
even if this situation pertains, the use of anti-love drugs would remain
unacceptable. Taking an anti-love drug that affects someone’s basic capacity to
love would affect her capacity to act as a person. An abused woman taking an
anti-love drug which affects her capacity for empathy would damage all her
relationships.
However
romantic love seems to differ from other forms of love. Most forms of love seem
to have more persistence than romantic love. Romantic love might be different
from other forms of love. If the above is accepted then some forms of love
might have the following structure. Love might consist of the basic capacity to
care about and identify with something or someone, plus the capacity to feel
empathy, plus the capacity for romantic love. It might then be possible that the neurochemical system
underlying our capacity to feel romantic love is distinct from neurochemical
systems underlying our capacity for basic love and empathy. If love has this
form then it might be possible for an abused woman to take an anti-love
drug which affects her capacity for romantic love without damaging her other
loving relationships. The above assumes an abused woman’s love for her abusive
partner depends on romantic love. In practice many abused women suffer abuse
for many years suggesting their love may not be wholly based on romantic love.
I have not
been able to answer the specific question as to whether it would be permissible
to take anti-love drugs in certain situations. The above however suggests that
before we attempt to answer this question we need firstly to investigate
whether love has a structure and secondly provided it does investigate whether
the neurochemical systems underlying
the different elements of this structure are distinct enough to permit the use
of these drugs.
1. Harry Frankfurt, 2006, Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford
University Press, page 41.
2. Frankfurt , 1999, Necessity, Volition, and
Love. Cambridge
University Press. Page
103
3. Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford .