More love troubles: Emma Gordon on biomedical enhancements and love relationships

Abstract In my contribution to this book symposium on Emma Gordon’s book Human Enhancement and Well-Being , I discuss and respond to Gordon’s extensive discussion and criticisms of a skeptical argument regarding the desirability of love enhancements that I presented in a 2015 paper. I start by first explaining the overall project of Gordon’s book, make a general comment about her overall approach (which I am broadly sympathetic with), and then proceed to a detailed discussion of Gordon’s critical engagement with my 2015 argument. I defend my argument against Gordon’s interesting criticisms and argue that Gordon has not defused my skeptical challenge to the desirability of love enhancements, but I also end by identifying key points of agreement between me and Gordon. Specific topics discussed include the distinction between ways of loving and causes of loving, the value of ways of loving and the value of the causes of loving, and whether or not the ideal of robust love attachments can be seen as compatible attachments causally dependent on love enhancements.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Published
2024-11-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-024-00222-2
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.34

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

More love troubles: Emma Gordon on biomedical enhancements and love relationships

Sven Nyholm
1 citations
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
0.34
article

More love troubles: Emma Gordon on biomedical enhancements and love relationships

Sven Nyholm
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract In my contribution to this book symposium on Emma Gordon’s book Human Enhancement and Well-Being , I discuss and respond to Gordon’s extensive discussion and criticisms of a skeptical argument regarding the desirability of love enhancements that I presented in a 2015 paper. I start by first explaining the overall project of Gordon’s book, make a general comment about her overall approach (which I am broadly sympathetic with), and then proceed to a detailed discussion of Gordon’s critical engagement with my 2015 argument. I defend my argument against Gordon’s interesting criticisms and argue that Gordon has not defused my skeptical challenge to the desirability of love enhancements, but I also end by identifying key points of agreement between me and Gordon. Specific topics discussed include the distinction between ways of loving and causes of loving, the value of ways of loving and the value of the causes of loving, and whether or not the ideal of robust love attachments can be seen as compatible attachments causally dependent on love enhancements.

Asian Journal of PhilosophyVol. 3(2)
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
0.34
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.