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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
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.
Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152–016–9293-4.
Henden, Edmund, and Olav Gjelsvik. 2017. What is wrong with the brains of addicts? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9285-4.
Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Searching for norms to violate. Reply to Henden & Gjelsvik. Neuroethics 10. Fothcoming
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. What Evolution Intended? Reply to Wakefield. Neuroethics 10, 69–70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9327-6
- Addiction similar to love
- What evolution intended
- General neural systems
- Defining disorder
- Reliance on moral authority
- Emotions and generality