Neuroethics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 141–142

A Morass of Musings on Moralization. Reply to Frank and Nagel

Letter
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Frank and Nagel are very interested in the causes and consequences of moralizing about addiction. If addiction is a disease, moralistic concerns are sidelined. If it's a choice, we'd better identify clear reasons to absolve addicts from blame. While these are interesting considerations, they don't have much to do with the model of addiction I put forward in the target article.

Keywords

Choice Blame Responsibility Disease model 

References

  1. 1.
    Frank, Lily, and Saskia Nagel. 2017. Addiction and moralization: The role of the underlying model of addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9307-x.
  2. 2.
    Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
  3. 3.
    Lewis, Marc D. 2015. The biology of desire. Why addiction is not a disease. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis, Marc D. 2011. Memoirs of an addicted brain. Brunswick: Scribe.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heather, Nick. 2017. Q: Is addiction a brain disease or a moral failing? A: Neither. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9289-0.
  6. 6.
    Szalavitz, Maia. 2017. Squaring the circle: Addiction, disease and learning. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9288-1.
  7. 7.
    Pickard, Hanna. 2017. Responsibility without blame for addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2.
  8. 8.
    Snoek, Anke. 2017. How to recover from a brain disease: Is addiction a disease, or is there a disease-like stage in addiction? Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9312-0.
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, Owen. 2013. The shame of addiction. Frontiers in Psychiatry 4: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Developmental PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations