A Morass of Musings on Moralization. Reply to Frank and Nagel
- First Online:
- 45 Downloads
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.
KeywordsChoice Blame Responsibility Disease model
- 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.Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
- 3.Lewis, Marc D. 2015. The biology of desire. Why addiction is not a disease. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
- 4.Lewis, Marc D. 2011. Memoirs of an addicted brain. Brunswick: Scribe.Google Scholar
- 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.Szalavitz, Maia. 2017. Squaring the circle: Addiction, disease and learning. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9288-1.
- 7.Pickard, Hanna. 2017. Responsibility without blame for addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2.
- 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.