Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 69–70 | Cite as

What Evolution Intended? Reply to Wakefield

  • Marc Lewis
Letter

Abstract

Wakefield doesn't mind my focus on parallels between addiction and love. But love can fall outside the bounds of what evolution intended. So, he claims, comparing addiction with love does not preclude a naturally defined "disorder." I counter with the argument that evolution handed us such highly general response systems, the bounds of normality cannot be defined.

Keywords

Addiction similar to love What evolution intended General neural systems Defining disorder Reliance on moral authority Emotions and generality 

References

  1. 1.
    Wakefield, Jerome. 2017. Neuroethics Addiction and the Concept of Disorder, Part 1 : Why Addiction is a Medical Disorder. Neuroethics 10. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9300-9.
  2. 2.
    Wakefield, Jerome. 2017. Neuroethics Addiction and the Concept of Disorder, Part 2 : Is Every Mental Disorder a Brain. Neuroethics 10. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9301-8.
  3. 3.
    Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152–016–9293-4.
  4. 4.
    Henden, Edmund, and Olav Gjelsvik. 2017. What is wrong with the brains of addicts? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9285-4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Searching for norms to violate. Reply to Henden & Gjelsvik. Neuroethics 10. FothcomingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Developmental PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations