Ross Andersen interviews Oxford ethicist Brian D. Earp about the morality of a “love drug” that would “boost affection between partners, whisking them back to the exquisite set of pleasures that colored their first years together”:
Imagine a couple that is thinking about breaking up or getting a divorce, but they have young children who would likely be harmed by their parents’ separation. In this situation, there are vulnerable third parties involved, and we have argued that parents have a responsibility–all else being equal–to preserve
and enhance their relationships for the sake of their children, at least until the children have matured and can take care of themselves.One way to do this, of course, would be to attend couple’s therapy and see if the relationship problems could be meaningfully resolved through “traditional” methods. But what if this strategy isn’t working? If love drugs ever become safely and cheaply available; if they could be shown to improve love, commitment, and marital well-being–and thereby lessen the chance (or the need) for divorce; if other interventions had been tried and failed; and if side-effects or other complications could be minimized, then we think that some couples might have an obligation to
give them a try.
The Dish 