Why Are Addictions Unacceptable?

Hi, my name is Steve and I’m an addict. 

Of course, we are all addicted to something.  Sleep or chocolate or coffee or something.  Addiction isn’t always the mine field we need to walk through, but often addictions are the archipelagos on which life is contained.  What is the difference between a drunk and a person who eats a candy bar every day?

Perhaps the difference is between what harms ourselves and what doesn’t.  Certainly too much alcohol and too many cigarettes are harmful, and so they are a bad addiction, while having a sweet tooth, especially if we exercise enough and have good dental hygiene, isn’t so bad.  Of course, anything in excess will kill us, and we don’t consider the items themselves to be problematic.  Why is addiction to meth—which destroys oneself completely— unacceptable and illegal, but addiction to Big Macs aren’t?  Why don’t the all you can eat pizza bar managers go around telling people, “I think you’ve had enough” like a bartender? 

Perhaps an unacceptable addiction is due to the harm that it causes others?  Alcohol addiction destroys families but an addiction to porn rarely harms anyone (at least physically.  Socially it may be a problem).  Yet we seem to judge addictions according to type, not to harm done.  If a person has meth on their person, they are arrested not because they have done harm to others, but simply because they have the drug. 

The other issue is that especially in the West, we almost all have addictions that causes harm to others.  Chocolate is often picked by slaves, that’s why it is so cheap.  Our addiction to cheap gas has killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world.  Yet few people (or nations) go to 12 step groups about their dependence on oil.  There are some kind of addictions that are completely acceptable not because the harm to others isn’t known, but because the harm is an acceptable price for the addiction.  While other addictions it is not.

Perhaps some addictions are acceptable because of the level of dependence.  A person who is addicted to drugs is consumed by it, where their life revolves around it.  They eat, drink and sleep their addiction and nothing is done without reference to that addiction.  Like a young mother about her children, or an older person about a bowel movement.  Or like a cancer patient about their disease.  Actually, we recognize that there are some obsessions that are important.

Then perhaps what society doesn’t accept is the cost to society at large.  Alcohol-related diseases take a huge toll on lives and the health industry.  But not as much as lack of exercise.   And the United States’ addiction to meddling in other nation’s affairs is far more expensive than any other addiction on the planet.   No, there are certain costs society is willing to pay, even if they are unhealthy.

Perhaps the real issue is the lack of productivity.  A serious addict is a person whose addiction causes them to be fruitless, listless, lazy.  So the addict is compared to the chronically ill, or the mentally ill, who have little capacity to be productive in society.  But the addict is anathema, because they “chose” to be addicts, while the ill have no choice.  Although personal choice certainly has an aspect in the disability of the addict, that could also be said for some chronically ill or mentally ill.  And the route out of addiction isn’t as simple as “making a choice”—rather, it is a long, complicated road that often requires a will and self-examination that few have.   And the reason we all have some addictions is because some are forced to deal with their addictions, while others are not.  We have all made compromises and allow harm to come to ourselves and others because of the addictions we have because we find them to be acceptable.  Not because they are right.

Perhaps some addictions are acceptable and others aren’t because we are hypocrites?

When Should We Not Forgive?

"There is a time for peace, a time for war; a time to sow, a time to reap;" a time to forgive and a time to... what?

Forgiveness is often stated as a general virtue: "To forgive, divine"; "Forgive and forget"; "I'm not perfect just forgiven."  To forgive is something that is an assumption, the moral equivalent of following the rules in a game-- of course you do that.  But should we always forgive?  Are there times when it is better for everyone that we not forgive?

Before we begin our questions, we must first know that when we speak about forgiveness, we are talking about three different actions.  The first action is releasing one's bitterness against a wrong done.  This is the kind of forgiveness that is being spoken of in the statement, "To not forgive is like punishing another by cutting your own hands off."  To not be bitter is to stop being angry about the situation, and it is a personal psychological state.

Honestly, there is no real reason not to forgive in this context.  The question is often whether a person is psychologically able to release the thoughts of anger against another.  As the statement above says, not to psychologically forgive only harms the one not forgiving.

The second action of forgiveness is at the root of the word.  Originally to "forgive" means to wipe away a debt. This means that there was money or some other debt that is no longer held to another's account.  The slate is wiped clean, there is a "zero" in the account book instead of a negative number.  This has the moral connotation of complete mercy.  There is no moral requirement for a person to not demand what was owed to them.  However, at times compassion overrules quid pro quo.

The question of not forgiving in this context is more complicated.  For some, there is a moral lapse in forgiving what was owed you.  For many people there is a basic principle upon which the world works: You reap what you sow; Nothing in life is free; You must pay for what you use.  If one forgives what was clearly owed (whether it be economically or some other kind of agreement), then that system breaks down, and people begin to assume that you don't have to pay for anything.  Is that really true?  Do we have to pay for everything-- the air we breathe is free, you are reading this post for free.  Does use or ownership always require payment?  Or are there aspects of life in which barter isn't ever required?  There are large chunks of the internet that are free, including valuable software and hardware.  Craigslist and other classifieds have whole communities that exchange items without cost.  Do these communities hurt the normal way the world work?

There is a different question if someone is demanding forgiveness of what is owed.  Clearly, forgiveness is something one asks for, not one demands.  Grace is a gift, but it is not a principle of life.  Unless one is in a community of giving, in which grace can be a demand.  If one is in Craigslist "free" listing, is one right to be angry if money is required when you come to look at the item?

The third kind of forgiveness is related, but goes a step further, which is to release from punishment.  Often there is a punitive requirement beyond a quid pro quo.  If someone steals from a grocery store, the store not only demands the item returned (or the financial equivalent) but also will have the person arrested and punished for theft.  Punishment is also meted out in everyday relationships.  To insult a teenage girl is to be "punished" by her not speaking to you for a time.  To sin and not repent in an Amish community is to receive shunning, or cutting off from the community. Adultery often ends in divorce, rejection of one friendship often means cutting the ties with other friends, to hit a person can mean to be hit back twice, or shot.

To forgive in this punitive context is to release one from any kind of continuing punishment.  This is not necessarily releasing one from a quid pro quo (although it might include that), but it is releasing one from any other requirements.  Once the debt is paid, the incident is set aside, not mentioned, as if the incident had never happened.

Why should we punish a wrong done?  Some say that it prevents wrongs from being done.  A person doesn't steal not only because it's wrong, but because there is an attached punishment that prevents one from doing that crime.  A person doesn't commit adultery not only because it would be breaking their commitment, but there are also consequences to such action.  But does forgiveness in one instance mean that all crimes are allowable?  Will people really do whatever they want because wrongs are at times unpunished?

Other times we punish because it is emotionally satisfying.  It is not enough for a person to pay back the same amount lost, there must be an additional payback. If our kid brother hits us, then we will hit back harder (unless he cries, which makes our dad hit us-- and he hits a lot harder). Unless we hurt a person a little more than they hurt us, we don't feel like we are able to forgive.  Is this emotion morally correct?  Is there a benefit of increasing punishment?  Or does "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind" like Gandhi says?

Where Does Morality Come From?

I think it is pretty clear that grasshopper morality comes from grasshoppers.  Even crickets, while they might occasionally be irritated at grasshoppers for their quiet, manipulative ways, agree in the end, "Well, they are grasshoppers.  They don't operate by our rules."  The same with dogs, sparrows, dinosaurs, and mosquitoes (although the latter's morality still encourages humans to kill them coldly, occasionally gleefully).

Thus, human morality comes from humans. While some might claim that God is the source of human morality, one would have to claim that God made humans to be a certain way.  Sacred texts give some general direction, but none say, "Yes, give 20 dollars to the beggar on 20th and Main on Tuesday of next week because it will change his life."  No, we figure out what to do, every day, with a holy book only giving us the most general of directions.

So where is the source of human morality?  Where does it come from?  This has been argued since the day of Plato's Republic, and is still being discussed today. The three main contenders are: a.Self interest; b. Moral reasoning and c. Emotion.  Let's take a moment to look at each.

Self Interest
Glaucon in The Republic presented this case long before social Darwinists did.  His argument is this: If a normal human being (not some goody-two-shoes Harry Potter) had an invisible cloak, he would get away with as much as he could.  He would steal, have sex with whoever he wanted, find out secrets to cut down his enemies, etc.  On the surface, if we have a fairly critical eye on human nature, we might agree. Micro economics is based on the idea that groups of people will always act in their own self interest.  Studies have been done to show that if a person thought no one was looking, people-- almost all people-- would certainly cheat.  However, those same studies show that people only cheat a little bit.  The cheating might increase over time, if they were allowed, but most people aren't interested in stealing Ft. Knox, but only a little bit more than they have right now.  Very few would become criminal masterminds.  Yet this doesn't deny the power of self-interest in morality.  But can we say that self-interest is the basis for all morality?  Darwin speculated that morality is based on what is best for the group or species, not the individual, which accounts for traits of  altruism.  But does that really explain a person jumping into a river to save a drowning child, although he might himself die?  Does it explain that we, as a species, are willing to let five people die as long as we don't kill one person?

Reason
The Enlightenment scholars said that the best kind of morality is reasoned morality, that which is considered and plotted.  Plato agrees, which is why he felt that the Philosopher King is the one to rule.   John Stuart Mill thought that morality could be measured like a mathematical formula, quantifying the right morality by measuring the total amount of pleasure by all people in any one action.  Kant felt that reason can determine the correct action, by determining the most consistent good, without contradiction.  But is reason actually the way we ever determine the right course of action?  If so, why do all of the moral principles determined by strict reason seem to be missing something?  Should we, like Kant says, never lie without exception?  Certainly it is wrong to lie most of the time, but sometimes isn't it the right thing to do (like when my wife asks me how she looks before we go out)?  Is the majority of pleasure really the best course of action, always?  If an entire city could live in complete happiness for a year if a single, young child is tortured and killed, does that equation really equal morality?  And in fact, studies have found that more often than not, reason is used after a moral course has been chosen.  Do we reason to determine morality, or to make our actions seem more moral, no matter what we have chosen?

Emotion
Emotion isn't, strictly speaking, irrational. When we are angry, we sense injustice and we respond to that injustice.  When we are fearful, we sense a danger to ourselves or our loved ones, and the emotion of "fear" drives us to respond to that.  So emotions are less "irrational" and more of an innate, intuitive rationality.  We are responding to a hidden reasoning that isn't necessarily conscious or even knowable.  And it could be that our morality is based on that?  How often is it that we know what is right or wrong instantly, without a moment's thought, even if we had never done a certain action before?  And we do not always choose self interest as our motivating factor.  People who make great sacrifices for others often do so instantly, without a thought for themselves, or really, thinking at all.

And yet, is morality strictly instinct?  After all, people can be trained in certain moral thinking, even as a martial artist is skilled in precise movements. Certain Buddhists, Jews and Christians live a very peculiar mode of life, based on a certain morality given to them from their teachings.  Is this a special kind of reasoning, or some divine guidance that allows them to live differently?  Or is it their society that molds them and trains them to become so morally unique, until their moral decisions become just as quick as capitalists? And is society completely to be blamed or praised for the creation of saints or serial killers, neither of which is trained by any society at all?  They seem to have their own set of moral codes that they follow, whether for ill or for good.

Or is it simply too complex to be determined?