Absolute Morality: Does It Exist?

[florduh]

So how many examples does it take to show that morality is in constant flux and always relative to many factors?

 

To claim an absolute moral code exists requires an appeal to a supernatural authority to impose it.

 

It seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm just not the philosophical type. Guess I'll bow out of this one.

[Guest end3]

So how many examples does it take to show that morality is in constant flux and always relative to many factors?

 

To claim an absolute moral code exists requires an appeal to a supernatural authority to impose it.

 

It seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm just not the philosophical type. Guess I'll bow out of this one.

 

Hate to say it C, but I am in agreement this time.

[Guest end3]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

I don't know if that solves the problem of morality. Would you consider the moral act is to pray when you can't do something? I suspect it's rather a way for the mind to free itself from blame. "I can't help the poor, starving kid in Africa. But at least I prayed, so now it's up to God to do something." It could even be an escapism for some: "I want to watch football instead of going to Africa and help the starving, so I'll pray and let God fix it."

 

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

 

Mriana, if every neighbor was loved and helped there would be no one without help. For example, let's look at a number line.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Now if one helps two, and two helps three and so on (immediate neighbors), then in the end all neighbors will be helped.

 

But me, being one, and seven being the guy in Africa, I can pray that God intervene with help before the neighbor chain reaches him through actions.

 

that's how I view it....

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Prayer only helps the one who is praying, much like meditation. It involves neuro-chemicals that helps them feel better in some manner, but the person being prayed for... it does not work. The individual has to want to do something for themselves.

 

I am sorry you don't understand my example. I will pray for me so I can feel better through "nurro-chemicals".

[florduh]

So how many examples does it take to show that morality is in constant flux and always relative to many factors?

 

To claim an absolute moral code exists requires an appeal to a supernatural authority to impose it.

 

It seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm just not the philosophical type. Guess I'll bow out of this one.

 

Hate to say it C, but I am in agreement this time.

Aaaakkkk! The end is nigh!

[chefranden]

Moral Monkeys

 

Do monkeys have souls?

[chefranden]

You yourself are making a point for Christianity. If we cannot identify the complex nature of chemistry, that mechanism that produces empathy and the supporting actions et al., and can produce a unity through this chemistry, then I am staying with Christianity.....and probably still would. But, but, I applaude you for the search.

 

Let me see if I get this: God = What I don't know?

[Guest end3]

You yourself are making a point for Christianity. If we cannot identify the complex nature of chemistry, that mechanism that produces empathy and the supporting actions et al., and can produce a unity through this chemistry, then I am staying with Christianity.....and probably still would. But, but, I applaude you for the search.

 

Let me see if I get this: God = What I don't know?

 

So I assume you think the evidence points to someday we will know this mechanism through science and we will live happily ever after? Objective morality is just yet undiscovered but it is there to be discovered.....not Spiritually of course.

[dagnarus]

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

Exactly! Notice the word use in your sentence. "I don't think it is rational to..." because sometimes morality must be dictated by reason and rational thought. Emotions cannot be the lone source.

 

Yes, but in my example, I used the neighbor scripture and prayer scripture to also rationally defend my belief. It's rational both ways IMO.

 

You yourself are making a point for Christianity. If we cannot identify the complex nature of chemistry, that mechanism that produces empathy and the supporting actions et al., and can produce a unity through this chemistry, then I am staying with Christianity.....and probably still would. But, but, I applaude you for the search.

 

Does absolute morality exist in Christianity?

[chefranden]

You yourself are making a point for Christianity. If we cannot identify the complex nature of chemistry, that mechanism that produces empathy and the supporting actions et al., and can produce a unity through this chemistry, then I am staying with Christianity.....and probably still would. But, but, I applaude you for the search.

 

Let me see if I get this: God = What I don't know?

 

1. So I assume you think the evidence points to someday we will know this mechanism through science and we will live happily ever after? 2. Objective morality is just yet undiscovered but it is there to be discovered.....not Spiritually of course.

 

Hey, I'm not the happily ever after guy. You are.

 

1. And yes if we don't rub ourselves out, we will know the mechanisms of morality. But there won't be any happily ever after about it.

 

2. No there is no objective morality. There is morality relative to the condition and construction of the human species, and other social species as well.

[Mriana]

I am sorry you don't understand my example. I will pray for me so I can feel better through "nurro-chemicals".

 

No, you pray for whoever, but it only helps you via neuro-chemistry, much like meditation. It doesn't do a thing for the person you are praying for. The only thing that will help them is if they want to help themselves. I don't know how much more clear to make it for you.

 

Here, maybe if I put this way for you- say you have a relative who abuses drugs and/or alcohol. We can agree this is not a good thing for many reasons (excluding the idea of sin)- right? Ok you can pray for them all you want, but in the end, it has to be their choice to get help, if they don't die from abusing substances first. IF they decided to seek treatment of their own free will, this has nothing to do with supernatural intervention, but rather a decision they finally made on their own. To attribute such a decision they made to something external is to discredit the human for being able of making choices. The prayer had nothing to do with their decision though, just your own feelings/emotions about the subject, and the morality of either person has nothing to do with said illness. Addiction is an illness, not a sin, but to force a person into treatment against their will, could play into ethics, morality, and alike.

[Guest end3]

I am sorry you don't understand my example. I will pray for me so I can feel better through "nurro-chemicals".

 

No, you pray for whoever, but it only helps you via neuro-chemistry, much like meditation. It doesn't do a thing for the person you are praying for. The only thing that will help them is if they want to help themselves. I don't know how much more clear to make it for you.

 

Here, maybe if I put this way for you- say you have a relative who abuses drugs and/or alcohol. We can agree this is not a good thing for many reasons (excluding the idea of sin)- right? Ok you can pray for them all you want, but in the end, it has to be their choice to get help, if they don't die from abusing substances first. IF they decided to seek treatment of their own free will, this has nothing to do with supernatural intervention, but rather a decision they finally made on their own. To attribute such a decision they made to something external is to discredit the human for being able of making choices. The prayer had nothing to do with their decision though, just your own feelings/emotions about the subject, and the morality of either person has nothing to do with said illness. Addiction is an illness, not a sin, but to force a person into treatment against their will, could play into ethics, morality, and alike.

 

I understood your point before.....please step down from the soap box......

[DarthOkkata]

"Addiction is an illness..."

 

I hate hearing that.

 

Addiction is not an illness or a disease.

 

No illness or disease can be cured by willpower, self control, and personal choice.

 

Ask a cancer patient if they think drug abuse or Alcoholism is a disease and you're likely to get your face spit on.

 

If addiction was a disease or illness, it would be treated like one.

 

Yes, it's a serious issue and an often difficult problem.

 

It is not a disease or illness, you are not sick because you have an addiction.

 

The cure for addiction is willpower and self control. In the end, that's the only way to deal with it.

 

No disease or illness can be cured by willpower of self control.

 

Stop calling it what it's not. Addiction it's own thing, it doesn't need to be wedged into disease and illness where it doesn't belong.

 

It can still be a serious issue and problem without trying to wedge it into a category it doesn't fit into. It doesn't fit the qualifications of disease or illness, it's a self control and willpower problem, it's not something you can 'catch'.

 

I'm aware that there is evidence of genetics being involved. However, that just means that there's a predisposition to being vulnerable to it. You could say the same of allergies, and they aren't illnesses or diseases either.

 

To put it in simple terms, addiction requires that someone intentionally ingests a drug or substance of some type [or in some rare cases, a habitual behavior]. They are usually aware of the risks involved. They continue to take the drug over time [it varies how long], be it alcohol, tobacco, heroin, sex, or whatever, and become more and more dependent upon it.

 

They choose to not stop, after a while, stopping becomes more and more difficult, either for psychological, or chemical reasons, usually a bit of both.

 

It is a matter of personal choice and willpower. Yes, withdrawal sucks, but even the most heavily addicted person understands that while it's bad for a while, it will eventually subside. They know they can choose to stop, suffer through the negative effects, and be back on the road to a normal life once it passes. Even though, in some cases it never goes away completely. It still will eventually become tolerable.

 

They choose not to, either because of personal weakness, or fear of coping without their addiction.

 

This is not how diseases or illnesses are contracted or develop. Addiction does not qualify as either.

 

Addiction is a choice. It is powerful, dangerous, and can be insurmountable for some to overcome.

 

Even then, it's still a choice.

 

There is no other way to overcome addiction aside from choosing to stop.

 

Sticking with quitting can be difficult, and there is sometimes prescriptions to 'help' the addicted along.

 

At the end of the day, they have to have the willpower, self esteem, and motivation to stop on their own. Nothing else will save them. Prescriptions can sometimes lessen the effects of withdrawal, but they cannot replace the will to stop.

 

It's not something that can be treated like an illness or disease. Yes, there are doctors and medical centers that deal with addiction, and as I mentioned a few drugs that help make stopping a little easier.

 

However, treatment is mostly counseling, group support, and is largely mental.

 

What illness or disease can you name that is treated in such a manner?

 

One of the biggest sins of twelve step programs, aside from sapping the willpower away from the those who need it most and giving it to 'a Higher Power', is the Myth that Addiction is some sort of illness or disease.

 

That's where the myth came from, and they should be sued for false advertisement and libel for it.

[Legion]

I get the sense that you are basically saying morality exists because it promotes social stability and cohesion. If so, then I lean towards agreement with that Hans.

 

Sorry I was so late with so brief a response.

[Mriana]

I understood your point before.....please step down from the soap box......

 

Then you should step down too, IMO. We are both entitled to speak our minds, thank you very much.

[Mriana]

"Addiction is an illness..."

 

I hate hearing that.

 

Addiction is not an illness or a disease.

 

Well then, have those in the psychological profession remove it from the next DSM. It is an illness.

[Ouroboros]

I get the sense that you are basically saying morality exists because it promotes social stability and cohesion. If so, then I lean towards agreement with that Hans.

Yes. That's right.

 

Of course it doesn't mean a static society, but a somewhat stable. Like jello. It moves, changes, conforms, challenges, etc, but it maintain a certain level of agreement. The alternative is usually bloody domestic wars or revolutions, which leads to a lot of dead people, and the survivors agreeing on certain core principles. One of them being: no more killing. But of course not all morals come from the basic concept of social stability, but there are other sources as well. It's just one of them.

[Jedah]

http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=1405717&postcount=331

 

posting again...

[DarthOkkata]

 

Well then, have those in the psychological profession remove it from the next DSM. It is an illness.

 

Mental Disorders are not necessarily illnesses or diseases. The DSM is a list of mental -disorders-, not all disorders qualify as illnesses or diseases.

 

By that standard, compulsively washing your hands, or being unable to step on cracks, or being afraid of clowns or thunder are illnesses. They aren't, they are disorders.

 

Retardation, Bi-polar, and Autism would qualify as illnesses. Addiction does not.

 

Addiction is not an illness or disease, Herpes is a disease and an illness.

 

Nobody willingly contracts Herpes. It's not something you choose to try and continue using. You do not go out and find a disease dealer and ask him to sell you a little Herpes. You do not go to a party and decide you'll 'just try Herpes once, just to see what it's like'.

 

Also, in reference to DSM:

The APA notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a “convenient shorthand” among professionals. The DSM advises laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling or treatment. Further, a shared diagnosis/label may have different etiologies (causes) or require different treatments; the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause for this reason. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.

 

 

Addiction is not an illness, it's entirely dependent on a person's level of willpower, and self control. No illness is determined or based upon these factors.

 

You cannot will illness away and you cannot overcome illness by having self control.

 

Willpower and self control are the only cure for addiction. There is no other way to be rid of it.

 

Addiction is definitely a disorder, it's not healthy. It is also not an illness or disease.

[Mriana]

 

Well then, have those in the psychological profession remove it from the next DSM. It is an illness.

 

Mental Disorders are not necessarily illnesses or diseases. The DSM is a list of mental -disorders-, not all disorders qualify as illnesses or diseases.

 

By that standard, compulsively washing your hands, or being unable to step on cracks, or being afraid of clowns or thunder are illnesses. They aren't, they are disorders.

 

Retardation, Bi-polar, and Autism would qualify as illnesses. Addiction does not.

 

Addiction is not an illness or disease, Herpes is a disease and an illness.

 

Nobody willingly contracts Herpes. It's not something you choose to try and continue using. You do not go out and find a disease dealer and ask him to sell you a little Herpes. You do not go to a party and decide you'll 'just try Herpes once, just to see what it's like'.

 

Also, in reference to DSM:

The APA notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a “convenient shorthand” among professionals. The DSM advises laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling or treatment. Further, a shared diagnosis/label may have different etiologies (causes) or require different treatments; the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause for this reason. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.

 

 

Addiction is not an illness, it's entirely dependent on a person's level of willpower, and self control. No illness is determined or based upon these factors.

 

You cannot will illness away and you cannot overcome illness by having self control.

 

Willpower and self control are the only cure for addiction. There is no other way to be rid of it.

 

Addiction is definitely a disorder, it's not healthy. It is also not an illness or disease.

 

Call it what you want, but I will continue to call it an illness.

[DarthOkkata]

Double post. >_<

[DarthOkkata]

Call it what you want, but I will continue to call it an illness.

 

Then you call it that in error. It's not an illness, and calling it as such all you want will not make it one.

 

I hate to say it, but we do get on to Christians on this site all the time for willfully ignoring things like this and making up weird alternate definitions for words that fit their beliefs or just to be stubborn for no good reason.

 

Calling Addiction an illness because both are unhealthy is like saying a microwave is a stove because they both cook things, or saying a Mormon believes the same things as Roman Catholic because they both pray to Jesus.

 

While they may have some similarities, they are not the same thing.

 

I don't know how many times I've seen the argument 'well, that's how you define -insert word here- but it's not how I define it.'

 

This isn't a case of po-ta-oh vs. po-tah-toh in this instance.

 

We're not trying define an abstract like 'God' or 'Satan' or 'is' here.

 

So, I'm sorry to say, but if you're going to say, 'Call it what you want, but I will continue to call it an illness.', then I'm afraid I must say 'Well then you're just wrong then, because it's not'.

[Mriana]

Call it what you want, but I will continue to call it an illness.

 

Then you call it that in error. It's not an illness, and calling it as such all you want will not make it one.

 

I hate to say it, but we do get on to Christians on this site all the time for willfully ignoring things like this and making up weird alternate definitions for words that fit their beliefs or just to be stubborn for no good reason.

 

Calling Addiction an illness because both are unhealthy is like saying a microwave is a stove because they both cook things, or saying a Mormon believes the same things as Roman Catholic because they both pray to Jesus.

 

While they may have some similarities, they are not the same thing.

 

I don't know how many times I've seen the argument 'well, that's how you define -insert word here- but it's not how I define it.'

 

This isn't a case of po-ta-oh vs. po-tah-toh in this instance.

 

We're not trying define an abstract like 'God' or 'Satan' or 'is' here.

 

So, I'm sorry to say, but if you're going to say, 'Call it what you want, but I will continue to call it an illness.', then I'm afraid I must say 'Well then you're just wrong then, because it's not'.

 

1. I am not a Christian.

 

2. I am stubborn. Sometimes it is on of my best attributes. Let me put it this way... back in 84, the first year I got to vote, my grandfather as he told every other woman in his family, told me how to vote. He told me I had to vote for Reagan. I told him, "Grandpa, I thank you for your advice, but when I get into the voting booth I will vote for who I want." He got mad and told me I was disrespectful. I got into the voting booth and I did not vote for Reagan. When my mind is made up about something it is very hard to change it.

 

3. I do not believe addiction has anything to do with 'God' or 'Satan' so I don't even know why you brought that up. However, from what I have seen, with the mentally ill self-medicating with drugs and alike, I truly believe it is an illness and as a society we treat it as such with various drug treatment centers. You can say I am wrong or in error, but everything points to I am not wrong about that. It is an illness and I will continue to call it as such, due to my knowledge and experience in the psychology field. You can call it what you want, but IMHO, it is wrong of you to sit there and shout that I am wrong. I am not telling you that you are wrong, I'm just saying you can call it what you want.

 

4. Until society takes the criminal aspect out of drugs, it will continue to be a question of morality, even when dealing with those who are sick with drug abuse and alcoholism.

 

5. You also do not know my family and those who have a substance abuse problem. I personally would prefer to think of them as ill, then to just write them off as a social problem, because they can be helped and treated, IF they finally come to grips that they have a problem, admit it to themselves and seek treatment. I don't know what you call it, but obviously you have not had any family members so ill from drug and alcohol use that you cannot live with them or even worked with such people on a professional level to know much about it. Until then, I would appreciate it if you don't go around saying people are wrong, esp when they have not said, "you're wrong".

 

6. Often when one does drugs or alcohol and has a mental health issue, it called a duel Dx. The axis I is the Psychological Dx and the axis II is the disorder such as personality, drug, or alcohol. Regardless, it is all part of the Dx and when taken together helps the team decide the Tx and/or the Rx. Don't confuse disorder to mean it is not an illness, because Eating disorders, panic disorders, learning disorders, disssociative disorders, and alike are placed on axis I too. Axis II also includes religious/spiritual problems or medical condition too. Substance abuse disorders can also be on Axis I too, but just because it is called a disorder does not mean it is not an illness.

 

You are thinking medically and I am thinking psychologically, but be that as it may, substance abuse problems are treated as an illness in the psychiatric field.

 

One last thing then I'll get off it. Do not let the word disorder confuse you. A disorder is still an illness. Mental disorders are mental illnesses. Mental illness has been so stigmatized that people are afraid to call it what it is. Mental illness is the extreme of the norm and depression is the common cold of mental health. A disorder is an illness, whether people outside the medical/psychiatric field want to admit it or not. Personally, I am not ashamed there are mental illnesses (or disorder if you are too scared to use the word illness) in my family- everything from religious psychosis to drug addiction, but I wish they would get help for it.

[chefranden]

A disease can be cured by will power and behavior change.

 

Scurvy for example can be cured by changing one's mind and eating a diet richer in fruit.

 

Chlamydia can be cured by taking a course of antibiotics, an act the requires will and change of behavior since one does not ordinarily take a course of antibiotics.

 

That Cancer does not respond to behavior changes very well does not mean the disease cannot be cured by behavioral changes.

[DarthOkkata]

1. I am not a Christian.

 

Nobody called you one. You're either not paying attention and missing the point, or willfully misrepresenting my argument.

 

You're using the same tactics as Christian apologists often use in your arguments. I'm comparing your tactics to theirs, and considering this opening point I think I'm correct in doing so.

 

2. I am stubborn. Sometimes it is on of my best attributes. Let me put it this way... back in 84, the first year I got to vote, my grandfather as he told every other woman in his family, told me how to vote. He told me I had to vote for Reagan. I told him, "Grandpa, I thank you for your advice, but when I get into the voting booth I will vote for who I want." He got mad and told me I was disrespectful. I got into the voting booth and I did not vote for Reagan. When my mind is made up about something it is very hard to change it.

 

Great. I'd have told the old guy to go fuck himself as well. That has nothing to do with this, and isn't being 'stubborn'. There's nothing disrespectful or 'stubborn' in your reaction to such a stupid demand.

 

If anything, he was the one being a disrespectful, stubborn, backwards, behind the times, idiot, in that situation. I wouldn't have been so nice in my response, even to a family member in that situation. I would have asserted to his face that I wasn't the one being disrespectful in that situation, and that he needed to keep his demands to himself, because he had no right to make them.

 

Then again, I'm sensitive about that kind of stuff. [America! Fuck Yeah!] If he'd been irritating me enough before hand, I might have had him removed from the polls for soliciting votes, Grandpa or not.

 

I was referring to the inability to admit that one is incorrect, and that's not a good thing. I don't dislike you or anything, you usually make intelligent posts, but you're sometimes guilty of this. I don't mean to try and single you out as the only one who does this here either. Others are sometimes just as bad. Even I've argued longer than I should have out of pride or just annoyance that I was wrong before.

 

I don't believe this is one of those times that I'm wrong though. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

 

3. I do not believe addiction has anything to do with 'God' or 'Satan' so I don't even know why you brought that up.

 

I didn't even imply that Satan or God had anything to do with Addiction. Once again, you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting my argument and/or missing the entire point.

 

That was a reference to words that have abstract definitions. Illness does not have an abstract definition like 'God' and 'Satan' do, it is not different things to different people. It is a very specific and rigidly defined word.

 

However, from what I have seen, with the mentally ill self-medicating with drugs and alike, I truly believe it is an illness and as a society we treat it as such with various drug treatment centers. You can say I am wrong or in error, but everything points to I am not wrong about that. It is an illness and I will continue to call it as such, due to my knowledge and experience in the psychology field. You can call it what you want, but IMHO, it is wrong of you to sit there and shout that I am wrong. I am not telling you that you are wrong, I'm just saying you can call it what you want.

 

Who's shouting?

 

You can call it what you want, however, that doesn't make it true. I said you were wrong because I'm convinced you're wrong and it's not wrong for me to point that out. Personal opinion isn't a relevant issue in the case of this particular subject. We're talking about something that has a definite correct answer.

 

4. Until society takes the criminal aspect out of drugs, it will continue to be a question of morality, even when dealing with those who are sick with drug abuse and alcoholism.

 

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with personal feelings or moralities, but rather the fact that addiction simply does not qualify as illness or disease. I never said it wasn't a problem or that it wasn't a serious issue. I'm not lessening or belittling the issue here, you're also not making it any worse or more serious by calling it something that it's not.

 

5. You also do not know my family and those who have a substance abuse problem. I personally would prefer to think of them as ill, then to just write them off as a social problem, because they can be helped and treated, IF they finally come to grips that they have a problem, admit it to themselves and seek treatment. I don't know what you call it, but obviously you have not had any family members so ill from drug and alcohol use that you cannot live with them or even worked with such people on a professional level to know much about it. Until then, I would appreciate it if you don't go around saying people are wrong, esp when they have not said, "you're wrong".

 

There's nothing 'obvious' about it. You're making assumptions about me that you have no way of knowing. Once again, the same tactics often used by apologist are being employed here.

 

You do not know my family or those who have and have had a substance abuse problem in my family. My family has a long history of substance abuse, I've lost an uncle to heroin addiction, four more have had long struggles with alcohol, two of them still actively deal with it, and my sister was dealing with cocaine and has been clean for only two years now.

 

I have also had problems dealing with addiction of my own. I had troubles with cocaine when I was younger and that only made my sister's problems even more difficult for me to deal with. I had a rough time dealing with her addiction, and she became very closed off and hostile with me for a couple of years because I wouldn't leave her alone because of my problems with the same issue earlier in life.

 

I remember addiction, and I was not ill, and I did not have a disease. You cannot choose to stop being sick. The only way to stop being an addict is to choose to stop being an addict. I know how hard that is.

 

I tried twelve step programs when I was using, and even as a recovering addict, I found them morally and intellectually deplorable. I went cold turkey about six months after leaving 12 step, and haven't looked back since.

 

Once again, what you personally think does not change the definition of illness, or that Addiction does not qualify as one.

 

I have no problem telling you that you're wrong, because I'm convinced you are wrong. Just because every argument has two sides does not mean that both sides are equally valid. There's nothing wrong with me stating that I think you're wrong if I think you're wrong. Disagreeing is not an insult.

 

Why should I have to wait until you tell me 'I'm wrong' first? As if it's just some sort of childish rebuttal like we were just going 'uh-huh' and 'Nuh-uh' back and fourth like two argumentative eight year olds.

 

6. Often when one does drugs or alcohol and has a mental health issue, it called a duel Dx. The axis I is the Psychological Dx and the axis II is the disorder such as personality, drug, or alcohol. Regardless, it is all part of the Dx and when taken together helps the team decide the Tx and/or the Rx. Don't confuse disorder to mean it is not an illness, because Eating disorders, panic disorders, learning disorders, disssociative disorders, and alike are placed on axis I too. Axis II also includes religious/spiritual problems or medical condition too. Substance abuse disorders can also be on Axis I too, but just because it is called a disorder does not mean it is not an illness.

 

It also doesn't mean that it -is- an illness. Yes, you can be ill -and- be an addict, sometimes they are related. That doesn't mean that they are the same thing either.

 

You are thinking medically and I am thinking psychologically, but be that as it may, substance abuse problems are treated as an illness in the psychiatric field.

 

One last thing then I'll get off it. Do not let the word disorder confuse you. A disorder is still an illness. Mental disorders are mental illnesses. Mental illness has been so stigmatized that people are afraid to call it what it is. Mental illness is the extreme of the norm and depression is the common cold of mental health. A disorder is an illness, whether people outside the medical/psychiatric field want to admit it or not. Personally, I am not ashamed there are mental illnesses (or disorder if you are too scared to use the word illness) in my family- everything from religious psychosis to drug addiction, but I wish they would get help for it.

 

I don't believe that being afraid has anything to do with it. They don't use the word illness because many disorders do not qualify as illnesses and that includes addiction. The definition does not change from field to field.

 

It seems to me that you're trying to force a definition on to addiction that it does not fit simply because you like the way it sounds. You seem to have some sort of emotional investment in this for some odd reason.

 

You seem to be 'thinking' with your gut, your feelings. Don't listen to Gut. Gut is a moron.

 

As I mentioned, you do not willfully choose to have an illness. You do not go out and find someone who will make you bi-polar, Autistic, or Retarded just to 'try it'.

 

You do not continue being Autistic, Bi-polar, or Retarded because you don't have the self control to stop.

 

You can not stop being Autistic, Bi-polar, or Retarded because you have the will and self control to force yourself to stop.

 

Illnesses are not a matter of choice or willpower. Disorders sometimes can be, but disorder is not a synonym for illness. They sometimes can both define a single condition. They are each their own thing and define that condition for their own separate reasons.

 

I'm not trying to be mean here, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Why shouldn't I say so?

 

If your feelings are hurt just because I point out that you're in error, then you're just being overly sensitive. There's nothing I can do about that, but it doesn't make you right either. Just because an argument has two sides, does not mean that both sides are on equal footing.

 

I think you're wrong. I'm pretty sure of it in fact.

 

Yes, you can call it what you want. I can't stop you. However, that doesn't make you right, and it doesn't mean that I shouldn't point out that you're wrong either.

[DarthOkkata]

A disease can be cured by will power and behavior change.

 

Scurvy for example can be cured by changing one's mind and eating a diet richer in fruit.

 

Chlamydia can be cured by taking a course of antibiotics, an act the requires will and change of behavior since one does not ordinarily take a course of antibiotics.

 

That Cancer does not respond to behavior changes very well does not mean the disease cannot be cured by behavioral changes.

 

No, they can't.

 

None of your examples are a case of willpower and self control -alone- solving the problem as with addiction. Neither example is a case where the simple act of not using something fixes the problem.

 

Behavioral change or not, there is another contributing factor in each of your examples. Taking antibiotics, and dietary changes.

 

Behavioral changes alone do not cure diseases. Though, they can help with recovery or treatment, they are not the cause of the cure on their own. Behavioral changes may help prevent the contraction of diseases or illness, but they will not rid you of them on their own. There is always another contributing factor involved, be it medication, dietary changes, or some form of physical therapy. In the case of the flu for example, rest and lots of fluids.

 

Regardless, it still doesn't make Addiction a disease. It's still not one.