In Matthew liao’s paper, Parental love Pills: Some Ethical Considerations, he claims that the usage of pharmacologically-induced parental love can be morally unproblematic. In section one I will describe Matthew Liao’s claim and perspective. In section two I will present my objection to his claim and view. In section three I will provide a counter to my objection and argue against it.
1a: An ambiguity
The claim that the usage of pharmacologically-induced parental love can be morally unproblematic is ambiguous, because the words “parental love” are ambiguous.
First, “parental love” could refer to the familial bonds between parent and child that motivates said parent to do anything for the child. For example a parental figure might act on or …show more content…
An application of his view can be seen in the act of raising a child. Raising a child requires intensive care with little to no real reward for long periods of time. During this time a parent may choose to enhance their love for their child by resting, eating, or altering their perception. Liao argues that this natural method of enhancing one's ability to love is no different from the pharmaceutical version. He argues that the primary reason many reject the pharmaceutical alternative is because it isn’t natural. However he would argue that like genetically modified organism and vaccines the act of using these drugs would only enhance an already naturally occurring …show more content…
Steroid and blood doping are forbidden practices in athletic events, because they provide an unfair advantage to an otherwise level playing field. This cannot be compared to the usage of the love drug because it would be used to supplement and help an adult care for a child, not win anything. My response to his counterpoint would revolve around what is an advantage. If steroids are considered to be bad because they provided an unfair advantage then people should be allowed to take as many steroid as they want to remove this unfair advantage. However many people would consider this to still be morally incorrect despite the equal opportunity. This is because the usage of steroids, no matter what the intention is morally
1a: An ambiguity
The claim that the usage of pharmacologically-induced parental love can be morally unproblematic is ambiguous, because the words “parental love” are ambiguous.
First, “parental love” could refer to the familial bonds between parent and child that motivates said parent to do anything for the child. For example a parental figure might act on or …show more content…
An application of his view can be seen in the act of raising a child. Raising a child requires intensive care with little to no real reward for long periods of time. During this time a parent may choose to enhance their love for their child by resting, eating, or altering their perception. Liao argues that this natural method of enhancing one's ability to love is no different from the pharmaceutical version. He argues that the primary reason many reject the pharmaceutical alternative is because it isn’t natural. However he would argue that like genetically modified organism and vaccines the act of using these drugs would only enhance an already naturally occurring …show more content…
Steroid and blood doping are forbidden practices in athletic events, because they provide an unfair advantage to an otherwise level playing field. This cannot be compared to the usage of the love drug because it would be used to supplement and help an adult care for a child, not win anything. My response to his counterpoint would revolve around what is an advantage. If steroids are considered to be bad because they provided an unfair advantage then people should be allowed to take as many steroid as they want to remove this unfair advantage. However many people would consider this to still be morally incorrect despite the equal opportunity. This is because the usage of steroids, no matter what the intention is morally