Addiction and Free Will
by Joseph Rowlands
Not too long ago, I watched a John Stossel special Help Me, I Can't Help Myself, on the nature of addiction. The show centered around the philosophical argument of Free Will vs. Determinism. On one hand, you had those that said addiction is what happens when something overrides your free will, forcing you to do things. You can be addicted to drugs, sex, gambling, etc. On the other hand, you had those who argued that the person always has a choice, and they have only themselves to blame for their actions. If they want to stop, they should just stop.
Both sides of the argument believed the other's views were destructive to the addict. The determinists believed that people can't quit their behavior on their own. They need professional help, and only trained doctors or therapists have the ability to break their addiction. To them, the free will argument was a false hope. If you tell people they can quit on their own, they won't seek the professional help they need, and will be stuck in their addiction. Further, they'll feel guilty about something that isn't their fault, and will avoid the embarrassment of seeking help.
The free-will side of the debate saw it very differently. To them, addiction is just a behavior. It's a pattern of action based on choices. Only when the addict chooses to stop will the behavior end. To them, the determinism argument destroys the only chance an addict has of quitting. It undermines his sense of self-efficacy, and provides excuses to avoid the hard choice. By telling them they have no choice, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's interesting that both sides of this issue believe not only that the other person is wrong, but that their views are actually destructive. Isn't this supposed to be a science? How is it that people can look at the evidence is come to drastically different conclusions on the issue? Won't the facts determine which side is correct, if either?
Well, there were facts. In fact, both parties pointed to the facts, but had their own different interpretation. For instance, a large number of addicts quit on their own. The free-will side would argue that that affirms their position. People can quit on their own, which means they do have free will. The determinists look at the same facts and say that yes, some people managed to quit, but probably because they had a genetic advantage the made them resistant to the particular addiction. That quitting on your own is fine for some people but not for others.
The determinists, on the other hand, would point to chemical reactions in the body of the addict, and conclude that there was a physiological cause of the addiction. If so, they conclude that it needs to be treated by a doctor, through the use of drugs. The free-will side was likely to look at that evidence, and only conclude an influence on the addict's decisions, but still uphold the principle of free will. One may be motivated to continue the behavior, but it's still a choice.
This issue is a microcosm of the philosophical debate between free will and determinism. It shows one example, and a limited one at that. The free-will side will argue that determinism is a self-fulfilling prophecy, where moral judgment is impossible, choice is an illusion, and you have an excuse for any sort of action. The determinists will argue that the idea of free will confers unwarranted and unnecessary guilt and will create an illusion of self-efficacy.
Objectivism falls clearly on the side of free will. Determinism makes moral judgment impossible. It invalidates pride and guilt with one stroke. It attacks your self-esteem by undercutting your mind's ability. It rejects reason by declaring your thoughts and choices as illusions and promoting a view of man as a mindless automaton pushed around by circumstances out of his control.
If you want to understand that practical nature of the free-will vs. determinism debate, I recommend you watch John Stossel's program for yourself, or read this outline.
Discuss this Article (77 messages)
|
