Final Paper Instructions

Due Date: Dec 16 at Noon

Paper length: 1000 – 1500 words :: This paper is worth 200 points

(NO LATE PAPERS WILL BE ACCEPTED.  NO HARD COPY NEEDS TO BE TURNED IN

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?
  • 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).
  • 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).
  • 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]

Additional Instructions: (review carefully!)

Be careful of assuming that everything about this implant is either good or bad. That will probably give you a very superficial paper.  There’s a mixture of an up and down side to consider here about the implant.   It these devices were obviously good or bad, they wouldn’t make for a very interesting paper.

Answer the question in full (each and every part and in that orderYou do not need to cite anything in this paper. However, that doesn’t give you license to plagiarize.  Make sure you use your own words.  Using anyone else’s words without a citation (including mine from the powerpoints) is plagiarism.

Treat this paper topic as what is it – a fun topic for a difficult argumentative paper about an abstract subject that demands that you show understanding of the material and provide clear and effective arguments for your positions. My standards are high, esp. for part 1 and 2.

Again, make sure you focus on the success of LOVE, rather than marriage or relationships

Avoid ambiguous or metaphorical statements, esp. ones that come from getting carried away with the topic. Also, ones that say things like “playing God” or “unnatural” or “artificial” without specific explanation of what you mean.  (use Aquinas if you want to argue the latter as a reason for it being unethical)  If you use these terms evaluatively (e.g. artificial = bad), be very clear about your reasoning for thinking so.

Remember that we’re talking about bonding chemicals (oxytocin and vasopressin, not dopamine) that impacts our caregiving system. These chemicals create attachment, not bliss.

Referencing a thinker is not the same as giving them a “shout out”. It means using their arguments and ideas to advance the argument you are making in your paper.

Make sure that your references actually support your arguments. I don’t care if person X would have approved of the implant or not, I care about why. I want to see you show understanding of their reasoning and the ability to apply it to this novel situation.

Do not use Aristophanes, Ortega y Gassett or Stendhal as sources. The first one introduces an idea as mythology, and the other two write about the process of falling in love, rather than the long-term state of being in love.

If you’re going to use De Beauvoir or Firestone, don’t forget that they were discussing love at their respective times (1949 and 1971). You’ll need to relate their ideas to present day America.

Don’t just tell me what the implant will do to love. Tell me how and why you think it will do what you say.  Only the latter demonstrates understanding.