Drug addiction is a condition typically viewed by society as one of choice. However, emerging studies show that addiction may be beyond the control of an addict; instead, due to outside forces or even chance. These contrasting views demonstrate the difference of opinion on the existence of causality and the role of free will in human decisions and actions. The idea of causality forms the basic principle of determinism, which states every event is caused and then acts in accordance with the physical laws of nature. There is variation within the framework with which determinism is argued, from hard determinism to soft determinism and all the way to the contrary, indeterminism. Applying the example of addiction to these views allows for comparison allowing clear similarities and differences to surface. Hard and soft determinism both accept the idea of causality, to an extent, while indeterminism directly opposes this principle; …show more content…
The idea that one event causes another and so on is so common in everyday life that we have become accustomed to it. Hard determinism takes the very strict stance that every event is determined by a unique set of conditions and acts according to the physical laws of nature. Soft determinism also defends the causal approach of hard determinism unlike indeterminism, which, on the other hand, refutes the principle of causality entirely. The hard determinist notion of causality is very rigid and stems largely from the thinking of classical mechanics. It implies that with all of the proper information it would be possible to calculate and predict some future event with certainty. For example, if one were to analyze drug addiction from the stance of hard determinism then biochemical imbalances in the brain and physical dependency on the drug are what cause addiction. In other words, addiction is due to physical conditions both pre-existing and transient in the addict’s
Sally Satel, author of “Addiction Doesn’t Discriminate? Wrong,” leads us down a harrowing path of the causes and effects that lead people to addiction. It can be a choice, possibly subconscious, or a condition that leads a person left fighting a lifelong battle they did not intend to sign up for. Mental and emotional health/conditions, personality traits, attitudes, values, behaviors, choices, and perceived rewards are just a few of the supposed causes of becoming an addict.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
People argue whether drug addiction is a disease or a choice. Today, I will be discussing this argument in hopes to have a better understanding as to why this topic is so controversial. Throughout my research, I easily found information on this topic and I am still not sure I have found any answers.
The multi-causal model of drug abuse takes into account social and individual causes of addiction, both distant and immediate, that lead to a disposition to using drugs, drug use and the social and individual consequences. Why a person becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol is different for everyone. Some are genetically predisposed, some learn it from their environment (i.e. family or friends), and still others use it to avoid a trauma they have experienced. The case history describes a client that had both social and individual causes for her alcohol use and subsequent dependence.
Soft determinism attempts to make the disagreeing data of determinism and freedom compatible. The theory of soft determinism rests on three fundamental claims: (1) the deterministic concept that human behaviour is causally determined; (2) that there is freedom in voluntary behaviour, so long as there is no physical impediment or constraint upon the action; and (3) that the cause of the voluntary behaviour (which is possible in the absence of impediments or constraints) is an internal state of the agent of the action. According to soft determinism, therefore, we are responsible for our actions on o...
A disease is what happens in the body as a result of those choices. As has been noted, many people do believe addiction is a sign of weakness. While the first time may be by choice, once the brain has been changed and affected by addiction. Over time the addict loses substantial control over his or her initially voluntary behavior, and it becomes compulsive (Leshner.) In Marc Branch’s “Drug Addiction. Is It a Disease or Is It Based on Choice? A Review of Gene Heyman’s Addiction: A Disorder of Choice” he discusses and explains Gene Heyman’s opinions on rather addiction is a disease or not. Heyman argues that people do not choose to be drug addicts, rather they make choices that lead to their habit of addiction. Heyman however does not believe addiction is an actual disease. Many others argue that addiction is not an actual disease because people can overcome the addiction without help or treatment. On the other hand, in Alan Leshner’s “Addiction Is a Brain Disease” he declares that addiction is an actual disease and explains “using drugs repeatedly over time changes brain structure and function in fundamental and long-lasting ways that can persist long after the individual stops using them”
“There is a continuum between free and unfree, with many or most acts lying somewhere in between.” (Abel, 322) This statement is a good summation of how Nancy Holmstrom’s view of free will allows for degrees of freedom depending on the agent’s control over the situation. Holmstrom’s main purpose in her Firming Up Soft Determinism essay was to show that people can have control over the source of their actions, meaning that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and because of this they have free will. She also tried to show that her view of soft determinism was compatible with free will and moral responsibility. While Holmstrom’s theory about the self’s being in control, willingness to participate, and awareness of an act causes the act to be free, has some merit, her choice to incorporate soft determinism ultimately proved to invalidate her theory.
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
A big challenge that I will face is deciding which side I will take on a big debate in substance abuse counseling. Some people say that addiction is purely physical, while others disagree and believe that addiction is mostly psychological. Those who believe that it is psychological believe that it usually stems from abuse or as Jane Adams (2003) thinks an over dependence on parents. This side also says that addiction is operant conditioning and that cycle has to be broken (Silverman, Roll, & Higgins, 2008, p. 472). The other physical side of addi...
According to Leshner, drug addiction is a chronic brain disease that is expressed in the form of compulsive behaviors (Leshner, 2001). He believes that drug addiction is influence by both biological, and behavioral factors, and to solve this addiction problem we need to focus on these same factors. On the other hand, Neil Levy argues that addiction is not a brain disease rather it is a behavioral disorder embedded in social context (Levy, 2013). I believe, drug addiction is a recurring brain disease that can be healed when we alter and eliminate all the factors that are reinforcing drug addiction.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Drug abuse and addiction are issues that affect people everywhere. However, these issues are usually treated as criminal activity rather than issues of public health. There is a conflict over whether addiction related to drug abuse is a disease or a choice. Addiction as a choice suggests that drug abusers are completely responsible for their actions, while addiction as a disease suggests that drug abusers need help in order to break their cycle of addiction. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that addiction is a disease, and should be treated rather than punished. Drug addiction is a disease because: some people are more likely to suffer from addiction due to their genes, drug abuse brought on by addictive behavior changes the brain and worsens the addiction, and the environment a person lives in can cause the person to relapse because addiction can so strongly affect a person.
When it comes to the topic of addiction, most of us will readily agree that it is a miserable trait to possess. An addiction is a physical and psychological state of being that if not treated correctly could result into harmful wrongdoing. In The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg, he recounts a story in which a fatigued housewife named Angie Bachmann lost all of her family’s assets, amounting to a million dollars due to a gambling addiction. Every habit has three components: a cue or a trigger of an automatic behavior to start, a routine the behavior itself, and a reward which is how our brain learns to remember this pattern for the future. According to Duhigg, “you cannot extinguish a bad habit, you can only change it” (63). Duhigg suggests that in order to change ones bad habit the “Golden Rule” must be implied. The Golden Rule is a theory of shifting a habit by retaining the old cue and reward, and tries to change only the routine. Duhigg’s answer to the question in the chapter title, “Are we responsible for our habits?” is simply “Yes.” If we have an awareness of our habits, then we are responsible for their consequences. In the case of Angie Bachmann, she should be held accountable for her gambling debts because she was well aware of her own bad habit and did not try to seek for help.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
There are many assumptions of why an individual may use different substances and perhaps go from a “social” user to becoming addicted. Understanding the different theories models of addiction many help in the process of treatment for the addict. Although people in general vary in their own ideologies of addiction when working as a clinician one must set aside their own person beliefs. Typically as a clinician it is best for the client to define how they view their addiction and their view may encompass more than one of the five theories. Some theories suggest genetic and other biological factors whiles others emphasize personality or social factors. In this study three theories are defined and given to three different people with different cultural backgrounds, different ideologies, different experiences, and most importantly different reference point of addiction.