Should Adicts Be Held Morally Responsible For Addiction?

522 Words2 Pages

Objection: The strongest objection to the argument that addicts cannot be held morally responsible to get treatment for their addiction is as follows: A requirement of addiction is that the individual understands that the action that he is addicted to is harmful to him. For example, a WSOP champion is known as just that — a poker champion, whereas a person who regularly gets into huge poker debts and may resort to criminal activities to pay off these debts is a poker addict. So when an addict makes a decision of whether to indulge in his addiction or not, he is fully aware that the addiction is harmful to him — yet he consciously makes the choice to perform this action (or take the substance, whatever the case may be). This means that the addict …show more content…

While the former has voluntarily surrendered his moral agency, the latter were never in possession of it in the first place. If an individual, with full knowledge, surrenders his moral agency, he should be held responsible for his actions which are made without said moral agency. For example, if a person who choses not to buy auto insurance continues to drive and has a road accident, he is fully responsible for the costs involved in fixing the damages to both cars. Voluntarily giving up the duty of moral agency does not allow an individual to sidestep moral responsibility. From this objection follows the implication that even though addicts do not have moral agency (and hence are irrational), they cannot be free from moral responsibility if the moral agency was voluntarily surrendered. Conclusion: Both the argument and objection bring important claims to light. At the first glance, it is difficult to decide a winning argument (or counter-argument). However, with a deeper analysis, I believe that although the objection brings out some problems with the argument, it fails to defeat the argument. The objection makes the following assumptions, which are

Open Document