What is the problem with addiction itself?

Question

What are the moral qualms that base our moral inquisition on addiction. These days, in addition to all of the regular, real addictions, we have the inclusion of "soft addictions", such as an addiction to shopping, or television.
I mean for this to also question our societal opposition (especially as of these last few years) to regular old addictions. What is wrong with the addiction itself if the addict enjoys it? After all, the unbearable lows that come with addiction also come with comparatively fantastic highs. If a person decides that the highs of said addiction make the lows worth dealing with, then why is it such a problem?
My basic question here is this: What moral authority do those who oppose addictive behaviors/substances have to impose their will on those who disagree with their holier-than-thou hypothesis? Why is addiction such a shameful thing. After all, addiction only causes pain to the addict himself. Emotional pain to family, etc. is not a morally justifiable reason

For after all, if we criminalized everything that caused any emotional harm to anyone, everybody would be a criminal, since nobody is so wholesome as to have never emotionally offended someone, whether they are close family or friends, or otherwise.

Also, I don't want to hear how your brother, mom, uncle, son or otherwise struggled with addiction, so due to that experience we should hinder the freedom of responsible adults.

Addiction is only bad if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

Answer 1

As I read your question, it comes to mind that our current sociatal attitude towards "addictions" is a bit skewed...there are possibly any number of things that could be classified as addictions, but surely not as many as are claimed? If addictions by a common definition are acts that prevent an individual from leading a full, well rounded, balanced life, then most people have an activity that might be considered an obsession, if not an addiction. The idea that we must live our lives in balanced increments, with so much time for this, so much for that, and always being moderate, wise, and ever mindful of how our actions effect others is a very recent one! Most earlier societies have placed emphasis on personal satisfaction, as long as the individual had the resources to pursue the desired goal. In some cases, addictions to drink, drugs, women, scientific studies, dance, bizarre collections, music, all sorts of pursuits were accepted as eccentricities in the wealthy; at the same time, any of the same behaviours were condemned in those unable to easily pay for their pleasures. Back to the Golden Rule....those who have the gold get to make the rules?

So in answer to your question, the authority to condemn any activity as addiction stems from societal pressure, and usually enforced by those who have the least problem escaping the consequences of that same activity.

The fact that the addictive behavior may in fact be harmful to oneself and others seems to have little to do with the severity of the castigation...today's fascination with victimization puts as much onus on an overeater as a drug user. Yet a wealthy collector of stamps may spend his grandchildren's inheritance with impunity... that is his obsessive right in a capitalistic society. The shame seems to be not in the addiction, but whether the addict can cover his markers to keep the activity private and not obvious to others. When others are affected by the addiction, then it becomes harder to rationalize, but still possible if the addict has enough money or influence to cover the normal functions of life. If not, then society condemns the practice.

Answer 2

I don't think it has anything to do with morality, as much as it is a life-effecting issue. Really liking something doesn't make it an addiction. A person is addicted or "dependent" when there is some impairment in their ability to choose, either whether they will do it, or when or how much once they get started. If a person has negative consequences from the behavior, ie. lost worktime, school work decline, family upset over being ignored or money spent, etc. or about being treated poorly or neglected while the addict is in their addiction, then THAT is abuse. It's the notion of some impairment in their ability to control it or something about it that makes it an addiction. There is one thing about a true addiction, it is it's own best teacher, NOT moralizers.

Answer 3

Addiction in itself needn't be physically harmful - look how many people are addicted to stuff like this site, or addicted to physical exercise, or sex even.

When the addiction costs more than the 'victim' can sustain as is often the case with 'hard' addictions (drugs, gambling, etc), that's when it becomes a problem, because if the addiction is compulsive enough, a person will probably end up robbing or harming someone else in order to get their fix. Even before this happens, they will have made things much more difficult for themselves.

This may not apply to most 'soft' addictions, but I have heard cases reported where defendants have claimed that they stole to feed an addiction to shopping.

Answer 4

I think that the point you may be trying to make is that people tend to use the term addiction a bit too losely, to describe any action they simply disapprove of. But just as a person can drink and not be an alcoholic, a person can shop and not be an addict. Addiction implies a lack of control, and a lack of control implies an inability to fend for oneself. Addiction is continuing a behavior or trait despite clear evidence of negative repercussions to that behavior or trait (from wikipedia's entry on addiction, paraphrased). I don't think that people have to look at addiction from a moral standpoint to think that it is negative - it can be a negative thing if it robs the person of their ability to do otherwise, their ability to chose - and through that, to some degree, their personhood and their ability to be a functioning member of a society. Even "soft" addictions - if they are truly addictions - DO have serious repercussions on people outside of the addicted. They do have these bad repercussions because that is what defines an addiction rather than a person who just likes to shop alot. A parent's addiction to TV can make them emotionally unavailable, which does have real repercussions on a child's development. Or maybe it has repercussions on a person's ability to live their life - maybe it's a crutch that they continue to fall back on instead of finding a job, while they rely on someone else to provide for them. A spouse's addiction to shopping or shoes can make them a financial liability.

Answer 5

just a personal view... Someone once told me that addiction is bad because it hinders you from functioning normally. I don't think this is a moral question unless you're talking about hard addictions. But pretty much everything we do affects others to some degree. If an addiction does not hinder one from functioning normally, then I guess there is no problem.
If a rich guy blows couple grand a week in casino, then it's not a problem. But if a poor guy blows couple grand a week in casino, then it is a problem.

Answer 6

The problem with your argument lays in your assumptions. In the case of a shopping addict one can become so far in dept they become homeless pulling a spouce into poverty. They sacrifice healthcare for a prada Then it is up to the government to help, or more often to that persons immediate family. Rarely will they get a high from a soft addiction that is reported at a level similar to drugs or alchohol. When a person can't help themselve others help, if they don't want help, then I agree with you, live and let live. Never should shopping, eatting, or tellevision be a crimial offense.

Answer 7

You confuse morality with the responsiblity to be a fully contributing member of society not a willful burden on it. By burden i mean the cost to other people`s lives, to the medical system, to the welfare systems, justice systems...etc. No, addiction causes real measurable pain to all members of a society. The problem with addiction is that it is progressive, destructive and destroys the very fabric of any social group.

Answer 8

Try working with crack babies, babies addicted to herion, fetal alcohol babies. I suppose you would just want these babies killed, because they are not important. addiction would be alright I suppose if someone only wanted to waste their own life. Unfortunately an addicts inability to maintain a steady job, money problems and health problems leads to societal ills as child abuse and neglect (this is only important I suppose if you care about children) medical bills and illnesses that must be attended to.....you have an adolescent view of life if you believe that what you do to yourself, no matter how it affects others, is ok.

Answer 9

Addiction urges one to put all their "eggs" in one "basket". Thus if for some reason the addiction is no longer availiable, or threatens to be no longer availiable massive personality changes occure. Not a good thing for anybody.

Answer 10

I agree. If you are an addict and you are not physically hurting some they cannot, justifiably, complain. No more so than if they didn't like the color of your shoes. People just like to control other people's lives.