Addiction and moralization: the role of the underlying model of addiction

L.E. Frank, S.K. Nagel

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

6 Citaties (Scopus)
170 Downloads (Pure)

Uittreksel

Addiction appears to be a deeply moralized concept. To understand the entwinement of addiction and morality, we briefly discuss the disease model and its alternatives in order to address the following questions: Is the disease model the only path towards a ‘de-moralized’ discourse of addiction? While it is tempting to think that medical language surrounding addiction provides liberation from the moralized language, evidence suggests that this is not necessarily the case. On the other hand non-disease models of addiction may seem to resuscitate problematic forms of the moralization of addiction, including, invoking blame, shame, and the wholesale rejection of addicts as people who have deep character flaws, while ignoring the complex biological and social context of addiction. This is also not necessarily the case. We argue that a deficit in reasons responsiveness as basis for attribution of moral responsibility can be realized by multiple different causes, disease being one, but it also seems likely that alternative accounts of addiction as developed by Flanagan, Lewis, and Levy, may also involve mechanisms, psychological, social, and neurobiological that can diminish reasons responsiveness. It thus seems to us that nondisease models of addiction do not necessarily involve moralization. Hence, a non-stigmatizing approach to recovery can be realized in ways that are consistent with both the disease model and alternative models of addiction.
Originele taal-2Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)129-139
Aantal pagina's11
TijdschriftNeuroethics
Volume10
Nummer van het tijdschrift1
Vroegere onlinedatum1 feb 2017
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 apr 2017

Vingerafdruk

Language
Shame
Psychology
Rejection (Psychology)

Citeer dit

@article{ce6359b2fea146f6b3378424b6c6525e,
title = "Addiction and moralization: the role of the underlying model of addiction",
abstract = "Addiction appears to be a deeply moralized concept. To understand the entwinement of addiction and morality, we briefly discuss the disease model and its alternatives in order to address the following questions: Is the disease model the only path towards a ‘de-moralized’ discourse of addiction? While it is tempting to think that medical language surrounding addiction provides liberation from the moralized language, evidence suggests that this is not necessarily the case. On the other hand non-disease models of addiction may seem to resuscitate problematic forms of the moralization of addiction, including, invoking blame, shame, and the wholesale rejection of addicts as people who have deep character flaws, while ignoring the complex biological and social context of addiction. This is also not necessarily the case. We argue that a deficit in reasons responsiveness as basis for attribution of moral responsibility can be realized by multiple different causes, disease being one, but it also seems likely that alternative accounts of addiction as developed by Flanagan, Lewis, and Levy, may also involve mechanisms, psychological, social, and neurobiological that can diminish reasons responsiveness. It thus seems to us that nondisease models of addiction do not necessarily involve moralization. Hence, a non-stigmatizing approach to recovery can be realized in ways that are consistent with both the disease model and alternative models of addiction.",
keywords = "Addiction, Moralization, Moral responsibility, Stigma, Disease model",
author = "L.E. Frank and S.K. Nagel",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12152-017-9307-x",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "129--139",
journal = "Neuroethics",
issn = "1874-5490",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

Addiction and moralization: the role of the underlying model of addiction. / Frank, L.E.; Nagel, S.K.

In: Neuroethics, Vol. 10, Nr. 1, 01.04.2017, blz. 129-139.

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Addiction and moralization: the role of the underlying model of addiction

AU - Frank, L.E.

AU - Nagel, S.K.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Addiction appears to be a deeply moralized concept. To understand the entwinement of addiction and morality, we briefly discuss the disease model and its alternatives in order to address the following questions: Is the disease model the only path towards a ‘de-moralized’ discourse of addiction? While it is tempting to think that medical language surrounding addiction provides liberation from the moralized language, evidence suggests that this is not necessarily the case. On the other hand non-disease models of addiction may seem to resuscitate problematic forms of the moralization of addiction, including, invoking blame, shame, and the wholesale rejection of addicts as people who have deep character flaws, while ignoring the complex biological and social context of addiction. This is also not necessarily the case. We argue that a deficit in reasons responsiveness as basis for attribution of moral responsibility can be realized by multiple different causes, disease being one, but it also seems likely that alternative accounts of addiction as developed by Flanagan, Lewis, and Levy, may also involve mechanisms, psychological, social, and neurobiological that can diminish reasons responsiveness. It thus seems to us that nondisease models of addiction do not necessarily involve moralization. Hence, a non-stigmatizing approach to recovery can be realized in ways that are consistent with both the disease model and alternative models of addiction.

AB - Addiction appears to be a deeply moralized concept. To understand the entwinement of addiction and morality, we briefly discuss the disease model and its alternatives in order to address the following questions: Is the disease model the only path towards a ‘de-moralized’ discourse of addiction? While it is tempting to think that medical language surrounding addiction provides liberation from the moralized language, evidence suggests that this is not necessarily the case. On the other hand non-disease models of addiction may seem to resuscitate problematic forms of the moralization of addiction, including, invoking blame, shame, and the wholesale rejection of addicts as people who have deep character flaws, while ignoring the complex biological and social context of addiction. This is also not necessarily the case. We argue that a deficit in reasons responsiveness as basis for attribution of moral responsibility can be realized by multiple different causes, disease being one, but it also seems likely that alternative accounts of addiction as developed by Flanagan, Lewis, and Levy, may also involve mechanisms, psychological, social, and neurobiological that can diminish reasons responsiveness. It thus seems to us that nondisease models of addiction do not necessarily involve moralization. Hence, a non-stigmatizing approach to recovery can be realized in ways that are consistent with both the disease model and alternative models of addiction.

KW - Addiction

KW - Moralization

KW - Moral responsibility

KW - Stigma

KW - Disease model

U2 - 10.1007/s12152-017-9307-x

DO - 10.1007/s12152-017-9307-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 28725284

VL - 10

SP - 129

EP - 139

JO - Neuroethics

JF - Neuroethics

SN - 1874-5490

IS - 1

ER -