Binocularity in Bioethics—and Beyond Brian D. Earp & Michael Hauskeller Abstract 1 Parens (2015) defends a habit of thinking he calls “binocularity,” which involves switching between analytical lenses (much as one must switch between seeing the duck vs. the rabbit in Wittgenstein’s famous example). Applying this habit of thought to a range of debates in contemporary bioethics, Parens urges us to acknowledge the ways in which our personal intuitions and biases shape our thinking about contentious moral issues. In this review of Parens’s latest book, we reflect on our own position as participants in the so-called “enhancement” debates, where a binocular approach could be especially useful. In particular, we consider the case of “love drugs,” a subject on which we have sometimes reached very different conclusions. We finish with an analogy to William James’s (1907) distinction between “tender- minded” rationalists and “tough-minded” empiricists, and draw some general lessons for improving academic discourse. 1 Please note: this abstract will not appear in the final, published version. It is included here for reference only. Published manuscript—authors’ copy. Please cite as: Earp, B. D., & Hauskeller, M. (2016). Binocularity in bioethics—and beyond. American Journal of Bioethics, 16(2), W3-W6. This is the accepted version of an article whose final and definitive form has been published in the American Journal of Bioethics, copyright Taylor & Francis. The formal published version, for purposes of quotation with the correct page numbers, etc., is available at the following link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2015.1120812