The Ultimate Commitment: “We’re getting the Implants!”
We all want love in our lives. However, as our high divorce rate reminds us, even when love seems at its best, things can quickly fall apart – and much else falls apart when love is over.
Imagine the possibility of using science to strengthen your attachment to someone you love. The possibility may soon be available to all of us. Consider the following: A matching unique pair of neural implants that releases bonding chemicals like oxytocin and vasopressin into your brains when you and your partner look into each other’s eyes. The “love implants” could be mutually activated (“turned on”) as a part of a wedding ceremony, or whenever the couple decides they are ready for the “ultimate commitment”. A year waiting period from the time of application would help ensure that the lovers are indeed ready and willing for this kind of commitment. Once the devices are turned on, the lovers’ attachment system will form an ever-stronger bond with the other person. The strength of that bond can be regulated over time by the couple (settings require mutual agreement) and either partner can decide to have his or her implant removed at any time through a safe procedure.
Your paper should answer the following questions in this order:
What consequences do you think such an implant would have on equality, personal autonomy, and unity (or wholeness) in love?
When speaking of equality, make sure that you’re clear on the specific type(s) of equality you think matter for this question. You don’t need to reference the types of equalities you discussed in the paper on gender equality, though you can if you not. Focus on equalities like these: of need, of passion, of maturity, of giving/taking, of respect, etc. Remember this is about equality within a love relationship, not about sex/gender equality.
Remember: Attachment is not love, though it may be a component of love
Given what you say above, explain whether the Love Implant interfere with, support, or be inconsequential for erotic love from the perspective of any 3 theorists we have discussed this semester. Be specific and provide substantive explanations. Do not use quotes from these theories (nor copy anything verbatim from my powerpoint slides), but instead, simply use their ideas (you don’t need to cite them).
This is the most important part of your paper and should be the longest. I’m looking to see that you understand 3 theories (not just specific claims) of love and can apply this situation to those theories.
Thinkers you can use here: Beauvoir or Firestone (if you use one, don’t use the other), Rousseau (on love, not identity), Solomon (on romantic love, not the historical nature of love), Schopenhauer, Socrates, Nozick (on love, not identity), and Haidt.
Remember: Attachment is not love, though it may be a component of love; (2) erotic love is not lust, but it is connected to and partially inspired by sex. Romantic love is one type of erotic love. All the theories of love we discussed, except for friendship, were about erotic love and your book is about erotic love. (3) You’re focusing on love, rather than sex, friendship, consent, relationship, or marriage.
What impact, if any, is getting such an implant likely to have on your identity? Reference either Rousseau or Nozick (or both) in your answer (you don’t need to agree with them to talk about their ideas).
If you already discussed this thinker is part (ii), then you would have only done so about love, not identity. Now you’re focused on identity. So, what you have to say about the thinker’s ideas should be substantially different in this part.
Do you, yourself, believe that the love implant would benefit erotic love? Be specific as to your reasons. [Please keep this to a very short paragraph]
