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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9327-6