Skip to main content

Addiction and Choice


Today's post is by Nick Heather and Gabriel Segal on their new edited collection Addiction and Choice: Rethinking the Relationship.

Nick Heather (pictured below) is a clinical psychologist by training and is now Emeritus Professor of Alcohol and Other Drug Studies at Northumbria University. He has over 500 publications, mostly in the area of addictions, with an emphasis on treatment and brief intervention for alcohol problems.





Gabriel Segal (pictured below) is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at King’s College, London. He has published extensively in philosophy of psychology, cognitive science and philosophy of language.




In 1997, Nick Heather, together with Ian Robertson, published the 3rd edition of a book called ‘Problem Drinking’. It argued that there is no such thing as ‘alcoholism’ in the sense of a discontinuous form of drinking problem and that it was not helpful to see problem drinking as a disease. Rather, people drink in problematic ways for a variety of reasons that can be understood from the point of view of social learning theory.



15 years later, Gabriel Segal began working on a paper (‘Alcoholism, Disease and Insanity’) defending the view that alcoholism, and substance addiction generally, really is a bona-fide disease. The paper included an extended critique of ‘Problem Drinking’. The journal, Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry, accepted the paper for publication and asked Nick Heather to write a reply, which he did.

Nick Heather and Gabriel Segal began to dialogue. They collaborated on a paper ('Is addiction a myth? Donald Davidson's solution to the problem of akrasia says not') arguing that addiction is a real-world phenomenon and centrally involves akrasia: agents acting against their best interests and, in some sense, against their wills.

They continued to dialogue about the nature of addiction and spent much time and effort arguing about whether or not it is a disease. After a while, it came to seem to them that that issue could fruitfully be set aside, at least for the time being. There was much that they agreed on and much else to be discussed. They agreed that addictive using is intentional action, and typically the effect of a choice to use. And they agreed that the choices involved are not completely free, in the way of normal quotidian ones, like whether to read a newspaper or watch TV.

They believed that the truth lies between these two extremes of no-choice and normal, free choice. They felt that disputes between proponents of these extreme positions have hampered theory, research and practice in the addiction field for too long and have prevented us from approaching the truth about addiction. They decided it would useful to address all the major, fascinating addiction topics from this perspective: that addiction is, in some sense, a disorder of choice. So they brought together an edited collection of chapters and, somewhat ambitiously, asked some of the most distinguished authorities in the field to contribute. They were delighted when most of them accepted the invitation.

Addiction & Choice: Rethinking the Relationship is the result.




Following an Editors’ Preface, the book comprises 25 chapters organised in 7 sections: ‘Introduction’, ‘Philosophical foundations’, ‘Perspectives from neuroscience’, ‘Perspectives from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology’, ‘Implications for treatment, prevention and public health’, ‘Implications for the public understanding of addiction and for legal responsibility for addictive behaviour’ and plus concluding chapters by the Editors.



Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph