What Evolution Intended? Reply to Wakefield

The original article was published

The original article was published

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 to check access.

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. Fothcoming

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

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