Free will and addiction

The issue of whether or not human beings are able to exercise free will is as old as philosophy itself.  Are we simply the product of the various impulses and hormonal floods and conditioned responses?  Or are we capable of making decisions that are independent of our early experiences and that are truly an expression of free will?

It is quite possible, even likely, according to recent psychological experiments, that we only have the illusion of free will.  It is possible that our bodies and brains make decisions before our conscious awareness even weighs in.  Some studies have found that our choices are made several seconds before our conscious awareness is even involved.

But one answer to this problem continues to arise:  the consequences of believing that we do not have free will, of believing that we do what we do as a result of the operation of psychological and neurochemical operations about which we have no say, are quite  unacceptable.  Such an outcome means that as individuals we are not responsible for our actions.  It means that we are only able to carry out mechanistically determined choices. It means that as individuals we "can't help ourselves", that we are not accountable, that we have no choice but to act as we do, and that therefore punishment or consequences are equally useless in governing human behavior, which under this rubric is simply not governable. 

People who claim to be addicts of one kind or another are claiming that their errant, illegal or inappropriate behaviors are not their responsibility.  They are asserting that they do not have the capacity to make choices other than the ones they make, to do drugs, to commit crimes, even to engage in sexual activities of various kinds.  To someone attempting to hold them answerable and accountable for their "addictive behaviors" they respond "I can't help it", which is the philosophical equivalent of "The devil made me do it." 

Even when others, including the law, their spouses or their victims (in some cases the same things) do hold them accountable, in their minds they are the victims of forces over which they believe they have no control.  Thus, they are also blameless victims, no matter the cost to others.  The hormones, the impulses, the fates themselves have determined the outcomes, and the "addict" is just another victim. 

It is useful to notice the circularity of the above argument, which can be summarized easily in the following statement:  "An irresistible impulse is an impulse one chooses not to resist".  How do you know an impulse was the result of an irresistible addiction? Because you didn't resist it.  Could you have resisted it? If you claim you could not, you claim it because you did not.  Have you ever had an impulse belonging to your addiction that you did resist?  Then you can resist it.  You can't have it both ways.  If the impulse is irresistible, there is nothing to resist and no point in trying.  If it can be resisted, then resist it.

With such logic you can do anything you like, claim that you didn't like it but couldn't  help it, and reap the benefits (such as they are) of being an irresponsible child who is at the same time immune from consequences and punishment.  The world in which "addicts" live is uncivilized, animalistic, brutal and exploitive.  How can it be otherwise? They "can't help it".

This is an unworkable model for a civilized world.  Quite apart from whether or not  addiction is a valid concept, a world in which people are not considered to be in control of and accountable for their actions is not one in which we would choose to live.  The proof of the above statement is easily tested by simply observing and evaluating the world in which addicts live.

It is because their irresponsible, impulse-ridden and animalistic world has to exist in the same world as that of the rest of us that the conflict between us exists.  Those of us who are responsible and answerable for our behaviors have to deal with those who do not, and the results for both groups is what amounts to war.  The citizens have to protect themselves against the lawless, but no less do the lawless have to protect themselves against us.

The only way for coexistence to occur is for physical separation.  The addicted and their suppliers need a place of their own that has limited intersection with ours.  They need some things civilization can supply and the humanitarian principles that characterize civilization requires we help them with those things, such as medicine and food.  There is nothing they can easily give us in return,  but their absence improves the situation for both groups and probably saves money for the civilized to boot. 

Let's give them an island.

Christmas and Birthdays Are Not For Everyone

Let's be clear first.  I am not referring to the quasi-religious aspects of Christmas.  I am referring to the custom of compulsory gift-giving on both the above-named occasions (Christmas and birthdays).  This custom has clearly far exceeded in importance any religious observances  long ago.  The real celebrators are the merchants.  We already knew that.

But apart from the apparent need to create Christmas bonuses for store employees, what importance does gift-giving really have for adults?  (We leave kids out of this discussion because they are supposed to be greedy and self-centered.)  Perhaps when we are young and starting out gifts can be helpful.  It's hard to understand why we need an excuse to give such gifts.  People we know and love will appreciate the gifts but waiting and giving one day a year seems a little constricted.

There comes a time when gifts become more of an obligation than a pleasure.  We eventually have everything we really need, or else the wherewithal to get them, and waiting until December 25 is absurd when we need to buy a new toaster now.  Giving gifts is equally tedious, not because we don't love the recipients (or at least should), but because choosing the gifts becomes an exercise in shopping for things  we are told  to get.  We become an extension of the gift catalogues and shopping advertisements.  We don't buy out of love so much as because they have ordered through us what they want or need.  This is about as personal as online shopping.

Birthdays are much the same.  Past a certain age the actual count of years is pretty meaningless.  Here we are, vertical and above-ground. We shouldn't need to be informed of our age. It's not for the birthday boy or girl.  It's to tell us we matter to them.  But why wait to tell us we are important?  The odds continually increase against us completing the year.  We would like to be told on occasion that we're important to those we love, and preferably on a more regular basis, and not with presents or a ceremony but with a hug and an extra smile, and a laugh at the old jokes that you have heard before.

Now for the old people in particular (and you know damn well who you are). What can you get us old ones that we don't have?  If we wanted it we would already have it.  We get to the age where getting rid of objects that require attention and maintenance is preferable.  We have accumulated "stuff" for years, and now it is increasingly burdensome and needs to go away, not accumulate more.  Maybe a night out together for dinner, or an invite over to see the grandkids, and a lot more often than one damn time a year.  Even items are ok as long as they are perishable.

Don't try to buy us off with a "funny" card pointing out how old we have become, or with a present that we have no use for.  Why make a point of how many years we have been on this earth?  We already know how long that has been.  Reminding us is more a downer than an upper.  Who thought we would make it this long?  But the time for appreciation of the love and support we can give you is now.  Tomorrow comes faster every day.

Is being "wrong" a psychiatric disorder?

When someone commits a horrific crime or crimes we want to know what's the matter with them?  And having decided that something is in fact the matter with them we then want to know why.  Is what they did an "illness"?  Do they need treatment or incarceration?  Is it their "fault"?  How should we treat the perpetrators?

It is tempting to consider such people as "mentally ill".  In that way we don't have to think about what they are trying to accomplish or if they are trying to accomplish any goal in the real world.  A moment's thought, however, is (or should be) enough to recognize that all of the mass murders are goal-directed, not simply an errant momentary impulse.   For instance,  the recent Bakersfield killings were carefully planned over a long period of time and carried out by people whose public behavior had been "normal" even to their closest associates.  So what was their goal?

They were clearly  not motivated by personal gain.  They didn't expect to survive their actions.  Their goals were ideological and based on fervent religious beliefs.  Sanity was not the issue; their belief system was.  To decide they were somehow psychiatrically ill and in need of treatment is to trivialize their behavior.  It also dumps the responsibility for managing them and people like them on the mental health system, which is totally unequipped to deal with them.  These people are not mentally ill.  Giving them a "diagnosis" is to escape from the reality that sane people can actually want to kill us.  We don't want to believe that. To kill people for religious differences seems mad.  But of course many religions, including Christianity, have done exactly that in the past.

Some of the mass shootings fall in other categories.  Mentally ill people can also commit crimes, and the reasons for their behavior will never make sense to the "sane" among us.  A recent example is the multiple shootings in the Denver movie theater.  Such people may believe that others are plotting to kill or damage them, or they may believe they are given orders by supernatural beings.  Their behavior makes sense to them.  It is not difficult to detect the bizarre thinking patterns that characterize such disorders. The only real question is what to do with them.

By the way, the only difference between in psychotic beliefs in supernatural directives and those whose beliefs gave rise to a religious movement is an arbitrary one.  If Jesus lived today we would probably hospitalize him involuntarily and treat him with medication until he no longer heard "voices" and no longer believed in his own supernatural power.  However, he was able to convince others that he was sane.  Other people with similar delusions have not been so convincing and ended up medicated and relatively mannerly.  

School shootings by adolescents might have as a goal some form of revenge on their treatment at the school.  The desire for revenge is not a mental illness.  What they did was criminal and not the result of mental illness. It might be helpful, however, to inquire as to what happened to them to prompt such a desperate desire for revenge?

When sane people commit horrific crimes we need to understand why they feel it necessary to do so.  We can't begin to consider ways of stopping it when we do not understand what they are trying to accomplish.  To dismiss their acts as "mentally ill" is to trivialize them and attempt to ignore them.