There are many potions which are capable of altering one's mental state. These range from the various love potions to Euphoria and Veritaserum. The ethical questions surrounding these potions are so important because they affect us on a very basic level, inhibiting our free will and potentially changing the very nature of who we are. The prospect that we could be so easily manipulated is frightening, and so we must take careful thought when considering their use.

The topic of love potions has been particularly controversial in the past few decades. These potions, the most notorious of which is Amortentia, produce a strong infatuation. These potions are often potent, even in small quantities, and are not easily detectable when mixed into a beverage, which makes it easy for someone to drink one without being aware of it. Strong doses of these potions can produce an effect similar in power to the mind control of the Imperius curse, making them potentially dangerous in the hands of an unscrupulous potioneer.

In the distant past, the use of such potions was commonplace. Many cultures would observe fertility rites on certain calender dates, and the wizards and witches of the time were often employed to produce such potions for use in the observance of these rites. Other cultures used them as part of their marriage ceremonies, believing that the potion would bind a married couple together for life. In ancient Greece, the witch Aphrodite was thought to be a goddess because of her skillful use of love potions to seduce those she found attractive. Over the years, however, these potions have fallen into disrepute due to cultural factors and a history of misuse. Many agree with the 18th century French poet Luis D'Arnot when he wrote:

"Beware the doe-eyed temptress,

The siren, ever cunning,

Whose lips are sweet as honey

And whose wine is ever running."

D'Arnot was writing during a time when the abuse of love potions was becoming quite popular amongst French witches, who were often being forced into arranged marriages. These witches, seeking affection and romance, would sometimes resort to the use of these potions to seduce unsuspecting young men into brief, passionate love affairs or, in extreme cases, to incite violence against their husbands.

According to recent studies, however, men are now more likely to use love potions than women, often for similar purposes. In most wizarding societies today, love potions are legal, and can even be given to someone without their consent or knowledge without facing legal repercussions. While this is frowned upon by wizarding society, it is not in any way prohibited. In general, thinkers on this subject fall into one of three categories - one which believes the use of love potions is fine, even if the drinker is unaware of what they're drinking, one which believes love potions ought to be banned outright, and one which believes that there are legitimate uses for these potions, but that they ought to be regulated.

In 1957, the controversial American ethicist William Nockbury, more commonly known by his pen name, "Wild" Billy Knocker, stated his opinion in a pamphlet, whose popularity peaked during the 1960's, especially among young Americans. This pamphlet, called "Rise to Anarchy," advocated several radical positions, including the abolishment of governments altogether, the free use of psychadelic potions, free love, and the equality of all magical creatures. In his section on love potions, he wrote:

"Love potions often get a bad rap, but they don't deserve it at all. Sure, if the only way to keep your relationship together is with a potion, that's not healthy or loving, but that's not really what they're meant for. Sometimes people just need a little help to see the beauty in another person, and love potions are great for doing that. Love potions can make you really appreciate another person, to see the good in them, and that's never a bad thing. Love potions are a great way to jump start a relationship, especially if two people have a hard time communicating their feelings at first. Love potions are just one of many ways to catch the eye of someone you couldn't otherwise get to notice you."

Nockbury goes on to describe other uses for love potions which he claims are legitimate, but since I wish this book to be appropriate for a general audience, I will not include these arguments. Obviously, Nockbury's views are not very popular, though his arguments ought to be addressed in a rational way. For many, their distrust of love potions stems more from fear than from sound reasoning.

The stance that love potions ought to be banned has been around at least since the early to mid-1800's. One early advocate for this position was Rebecca MacIrving, a social activist who championed a campaign for temperance in the wizarding communities of Britain, America, and Europe. She believed that pleasures were to be enjoyed sparingly, and that a simple life was more fulfilling and rewarding than one filled with hedonistic excesses. She wrote an article which the Daily Prophet published in 1846 called "On the Evils of Amortentia." It read:

"Amortentia and other so-called 'love potions' are nought but vile concoctions which serve only to cloud the mind and dull the conscience. Such bres are made solely for the purpose of preying upon the innocent, enslaving them to their lustful desires and promoting imprudent behavior, especially amongst our youth. God does not smile upon those who suppor the use of Amortentia, nor those who teach our children in school how to create such a foul substance. 'Love' potions serve only to give lewd, unscrupulous men means by which they canbeguile and corrupt women who would otherwise be upright in all things."

She went on to pettition the Ministry of Magic six times to outlaw love potions, as well as other substances and practices she considered to be immoral, such as duelling and and charms for making food more flavorful. Though her overall position has never been popular among the general public, many do share her view that the only reason love potions exist is to override the will of another for selfish ends, and few years go by in which the Minister for Magic does not receive letters urging him to push to ban love potions outright.

A more moderate position between the two which still calls for a change in policy from that currently enacted by most wizarding communities is that of people like Tabitha Bainbridge, who advocate that the use of love potions should be regulated, and that improper use of these potions should be punishable by law. In 2008, Bainbridge pettitioned the Ministry of magic to enact laws to govern the use of these potions, and her suggestions were as follows:

"We the undersigned hereby pettition the Ministry of Magic to enact as law the following resolutions in order to better protect the rights and autonomy of the citizens under its governance:

1) Giving another person, whether magical or Muggle, a love potion without their knowledge or consent is to be prohibited and punishable by law. While love potions may be legitimately used by consenting parties, they should not be used as a means to obtain affection, sex, or sexual favors.

2) Love potions should not be made available to nor used on underage wizards, even with consent. This would ensure that love potions are only used by those capable of making an informed decision about whether or not to take the potion. Those found selling or otherwise providing minors with love potions should face criminal charges."

Bainbridge's pettition has gained some popular acceptance, but as yet has not been given much serious attention. Still, the arguments she presents are still important to think about. To Bainbridge and her supporters, the question of whether a love potion may be legally used should revolve around consent. In their eyes, those who have not given or are incapable of giving informed consent should be under the protection of the law and, ideally, should not have to worry about being given a love potion against their will or without their knowledge. Some critics argue that these restrictions would render love potions banned in practice, even if not in principle, since someone who would consent to taking a love potion does not need one.

Love potions are not, however, the only type of mind-altering potion. Another potion whose use has been debated among ethicists for centuries is Veritaserum. While individual views on the subject vary, the two most popular in the literature are those who think it should be banned and those who think its use is permissible under certain circumstances.

Antonias Lestrange, a lawyer in the mid-1800's and an advisor to the International Confederation of Wizards wrote a treatise which opposes the use of Veritaserum, even in the case of legal proceedings and interrogations during war. His view has not been widely accepted in the realms of politics and academia, nor among the general wizarding populace, though there are some who still hold to his views and his thoughts on the matter still influence the discussion of the topic. The most relevant part of the argument reads:

"There is nought more sacred than the privacy of a man's mind. All men have thought and done things which, should they be paraded before the public, would cause them to blush. What is a man if even his own mind is not totally his own domain? Should a man accused of a crime be stripped bare and paraded before the whole world on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing? I say nay. Our duty is first and foremost to uphold the dignity of wizards. The cowardly use of such base means to wrest from a man's mind his most guarded secrets is debasing and lowers man beneath the animals over which he ought to have dominion."

To Lestrange, the privacy of the mind is sacred and ought never to be violated, even under extreme circumstances. More Consequentialist thinkers, however, have challenged this, claiming that the damage done through the use of Veritaserum in criminal trials and wartime interrogations is an acceptable price to protect the lives and livelihoods of the innocent. 

However, there is still much conflict in the field over where to draw the line as far as the use of Veritaserum is concerned. One incident which is often cited as a possible abuse of the potion was in 1995 in which Dolores Umbridge, Hogwarts High Inquisitor and Headmistress of the school for a brief time, decided to use Veritaserum on students in an attempt to weed out unauthorized student groups.

Unfortunately, the scope of this book does not allow me to go into great depth on any more mind-altering potions, most of which are highly controversial. Even antidotes for certain mental impairments are challenged from time to time. As with all things regarding ethics, we must carefully consider these issues and come to our own conclusions.

Follow-up Questions:

Under what circumstances do you think it is permissible to give another person a love potion? Do you think the government should play a role in regulating their use?

Why might someone object to the use of Veritaserum? Do you think such objections are justified?

What other kinds of potion might be controversial? Do you think the way such potions are currently viewed by society is correct, or should something change?