Absolute Morality: Does It Exist?

[Mriana]

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.

 

It does not make you right either. You can say you are pretty sure I am wrong, but that doesn't mean anything until you are sure. My opinion, I don't think you know what you are talking about because you haven't worked in the field.

 

Sure will-power is not enough to overcome an addiction. One needs treatment to overcome it, which means going to a treatment center ran by those in the psychology and medical field.

 

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.

 

What makes you think my feelings are hurt? They are not. Why should they be. I'm just sorry more people have not researched it more or even learned from others who have worked in the field. We aren't on equal footing, that is for sure. I'm afraid you do not realize that disorder and illness are synonyms. It's sad really.

[DarthOkkata]

 

Sure will-power is not enough to overcome an addiction. One needs treatment to overcome it, which means going to a treatment center ran by those in the psychology and medical field.

 

Bull. I used coke for seven years, heavily. I started as a teen and quit in my early twenties. I just stopped. No treatment center, no support groups, no psychologist or medical experts. I stopped buying, and I stopped using.

 

I failed out of AA after only a month, left hating it and everything it stood for, and went back to using for six months. I got sick of being a loser and jerk, and just fucking stopped.

 

I lost contact with my dealers and drug friends, and just walked away. I toughed out my withdrawal, took it like a man, and got through it on my own. I'm still clean and have been for as long as I used now. There is no other way to do it. Sure treatment helps some people cope with it. In the end though, it's something only you can do for yourself.

 

There is no other answer. It's something you have to find the strength to do for yourself, and no one else is going to or can do it for you. It's something you have to do as an individual, even if you're getting support from others, you're the one who has to overcome and the only one who can really deal with it.

 

I have had conversations with experts about my addiction and the addiction of others [Years after the fact, not as treatment or counseling]. I've spoken with others about addiction, had conversations with former and current addicts, and I have had this argument more than once before.

 

Addiction is not a disease, disorder is not a synonym for illness. Illness is a synonym for disease, not disorder. Disorder is it's own thing, and while related [and sometimes overlapping] with disease and illness, it is definitely -not- the same thing.

 

What makes you think my feelings are hurt? They are not. Why should they be.

 

You seem a little defensive and were using arguments designed to play on emotions rather than rationality. It seemed reasonable to think that you might be emotionally involved with this subject and taking it in the wrong manner a little.

 

It wasn't that serious a concern, but I felt it was better to err on the side of caution. I'd rather not upset anyone, but I'm afraid I'm positive I'm right about this.

 

I'm not trying to insult, but I strongly disagree, and I don't feel that your tactics in this discussion have been completely on the level either.

 

I'm just sorry more people have not researched it more or even learned from others who have worked in the field. We aren't on equal footing, that is for sure. I'm afraid you do not realize that disorder and illness are synonyms. It's sad really.

 

No, they aren't synonyms. You're right, we're not on equal footing here, and you're coming off as very arrogant and even a bit belittling and underhanded at this point.

 

You sound like you're trying use pity as an argument and have repeatedly used appeal to emotion, appeal to experts, unfounded assumptions, distraction by [what seems to be] playing dumb and pretending to not understand the argument and intentionally misrepresenting it in the reply, and other suspect tactics as a case for your position on the matter.

 

I'm afraid that I must stick with my earlier statement that you're coming off just like a Christian apologist would in a conversation about God about this subject.

 

I'm not saying that you -are- a Christian apologist, but you sure are arguing like one. You're using similar diversionary and bait and switch arguments, making the same kinds of logic errors, appeals to authority type arguments, and using the same suspect tactics an apologist will often employ to make your case here. It just comes off as grating and more like you're appealing to emotions and trying to draw on special pleading rather than making rational points.

 

This is an issue I've dealt with personally, and I'm not some idiot who's never had anything to do with the matter who just stumbled in and started making unfounded claims. I've dealt with it myself on a personal level, and in my family in the past, and in the present. I have taken an interest in the subject for obvious reasons. I know what I'm talking about here, and I didn't waltz in and just start making claims and guesses with no basis.

 

I was trying to not sound too harsh, but since you put it this way...

 

I am -positive- and -certain- that you are wrong. There is no doubt that you are wrong. If you studied with someone who taught you this was correct, they taught you wrong, and were incorrect to begin with.

 

You're right, it is sad that the lie of addiction being a disease is still being spread about.

[Mriana]

I am -positive- and -certain- that you are wrong. There is no doubt that you are wrong. If you studied with someone who taught you this was correct, they taught you wrong, and were incorrect to begin with.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Nothing wrong with that.

 

BTW, congratulations on succeeding on quitting by yourself. Most people can't and need treatment in order to succeed.

[DarthOkkata]

I am -positive- and -certain- that you are wrong. There is no doubt that you are wrong. If you studied with someone who taught you this was correct, they taught you wrong, and were incorrect to begin with.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Nothing wrong with that.

 

BTW, congratulations on succeeding on quitting by yourself. Most people can't and need treatment in order to succeed.

 

No, nothing wrong with that at all.

 

I personally won't call it 'illness' and it kind of bugs me a little when people do. I do think I have valid reasons for it though. I admit it perhaps bugs me more than it should sometimes.

 

If you want to say that it is, I'll openly disagree with it and argue against it, but I won't tell you to shut up either. I just think you're wrong about it, and I feel an obligation to point that out and say so.

 

You have as much right to your voice as I do. I don't think that it's right though, and possibly does more harm than good. I feel it helps promote the notion that addicts are helpless and slaves to their vices with no will or choice of their own involved. As if it's something they contracted like the Flu or an STD.

 

Thanks, I'm proud of kicking my old habit.

 

Still, it's difficult, but not impossible to kick the habit without help. Treatment is not mandatory, necessary, nor the only way to deal with it. In the end, it's a personal choice, and only a person's willpower that will stop the destructive cycle of addiction, regardless of treatment.

 

Treatment can help with that, I'm not saying that it can't. It can help bolster the will and provide incentive to do better where someone might not be able to muster the will and purpose for it on their own.

 

I've yet to meet a truly recovered addict who will disagree with me that 'it has to be you, your choice, your will that overcomes it in the end'. Even those who have come from treatment programs.

 

The idea that you have to have help and cannot do it on your own is not something I think should be promoted.

 

It can make an addict feel like they're powerless against their addiction. They have a hard enough time with that without someone saying that the 'only way' to deal with it is with professional help. That sort of thing can turn some types of people against even trying to do something about their problem.

 

Help can make it easier it's true, but you can do it on your own. I'm living proof.

 

I firmly believe that at the end of the day, it all comes down to the individual, help can only do so much, and it can't make the decision for you.

 

I'm all for support groups and useful treatment. I don't want to come off as sounding as if I oppose things like that at all. It can do things for people who might not be strong enough on their own. If help is needed, I'll be the first one to recommend it with the added aside of 'stay away from twelve step programs, get real help'. I'm more than happy to provide references and contact information to them as well.

 

I'll tell people that 'you have to do it yourself at the end of the day', but I'll also add that 'help can make that easier to do, if you need it, get it'. There's nothing wrong or weak about seeking help if you require it.

 

AA and it's 12 step counterparts are pure evil. Nothing more than brain washing and self esteem sapping disguised as 'help'. It disgusts me, I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Giving your willpower and personal choice over to a 'higher power' is not helpful. I believe it's harmful in fact.

[Mriana]

All well and good, now back to what I was saying in short-

 

When a relative has the illness of substance abuse, possibly a duel Dx, refuses to get help, brought in a large quantity of a given drug, then is it a moral, ethical, or some other question to throw him out of one's home, even if he has not job due to said illness? Keep in mind that he may have been in treatment twice (no not 12 step), but played games the whole time and has become impossible to live with due to violent behaviour. Said relative is not a minor either. IMHO, there comes a point when other family members have to take a stand and practice Tough Love®, which sometimes means throwing out the person who needs to seek treatment, esp when the individual does not see they have a problem.

 

Oh I left out the part that the supernatural has nothing to do with any of it, but one can go back read my original post on it.

[chefranden]

No, they can't.

Yes they can.

 

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.

Nonsense, you can't tie your shoe laces unless you will it so. True my examples are the simple act of using something, but so what? One can't act negatively or positively with out the will to act. Thus will power can and is used to cure disease.

 

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

Doesn't matter it still requires will power.

 

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.

 

You:"No illness or disease can be cured by willpower, self control, and personal choice." Nothing here about not having accouterments.

 

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

 

Is too

[Skankboy]

I'm no expert, but I would say addicition could be considered an illness as it involves a physical, chemical issue in addition to the psychological components.

[Mriana]

I'm no expert, but I would say addicition could be considered an illness as it involves a physical, chemical issue in addition to the psychological components.

 

That's just it, Skankboy, like mood disorders (depression, bipolar) addiction is an illness. Most substance abusers (alcoholics and/or drug addicts) are self-medicating to begin with, but in the psychological field it is considered an illness and is treated as such. (regardless of what lay people want to say) I think it will be treated as such for a long time to come because most people can't just give it up, at least not without some professional psychological and medical help. Sometimes it is a case of a bipolar self-medicating and a doctor or psychiatrist have to get them on the right medication. In which case they have a duel dx.

 

BTW, contrary to darth or whoever I was arguing with, what I said was not all based on emotional appeal or whatever. It was also based on education and professional experience. I have worked in the mental health field, but found I didn't care for it very much and I wasn't talking about any 12-step program either. Not sure where he got that from except his own personal experience. 12-step is nothing but a support group IMO.

[chefranden]

I should add that one can use drugs to get over an addiction disease as well. There is the patch for smoking for example, and there is some drug that makes a person ill if he/she takes alcohol.

[DarthOkkata]

Addiction is not a natural chemical problem. That's why it's not an 'illness'. It's an outside issue that's willfully caused by the addict. They choose to inflict it on themselves, illnesses don't work that way.

 

They do not choose to become 'addicted', however they do seek out and choose to take whatever is causing the addiction initially and continue to do so until and after they are.

 

That's not within the profile of 'illness' or 'disease'. It's definitely a disorder, but disorder is not a synonym for illness or disease either. They are related terms, but are not the same thing.

 

I've also spoken with professionals, those who actually stayed in the field and most to my knowledge still work there. I sometimes do a little bit of speaking at local schools and meetings as a former addict as a favor for people I know. I know a few professional people, though admittedly not well. I'd call them acquaintances more than friends. Most of them I know through other former addicts I've met and am friends with.

 

I make a nice success story it seems. I don't do it really often or anything, but a two or three times a year I'll help out as a speaker. I've got a few friends who will ask me to help out on occasion who are more active than I am in volunteer work.

 

That's where I get 'addiction is not a disease' from. You're the first person I've ever heard of that makes the claim that it is within the field and not actively involved with 12 step programs. The only people I've spoken to who claim that it is are those who have gone through or promote the use of 12 step programs.

 

If you want to call it an illness I can't and have no real desire to stop you. I still think you're wrong and there are professionals I've spoken with who say it isn't. I do think I should say that it isn't even if you think that it is. We can disagree on that issue without having conflicting interests, it's a relatively minor point really. We're pretty much just splitting hairs on terminology.

 

Though I also admit I tend to avoid people who promote 12 step programs. I despise twelve step programs, it's about the worst thing you can do to help an addict by sending them to one.

 

Twelve step programs are thinly disguised Christian initiation farms.

 

They don't tell you that the 'Higher Power' is supposed to be Jesus, but it's heavily implied to the point it's near impossible to ignore. Every time you turn your head you'll see a Bible, they'll give you a free one if you don't have your own. They'll ask if you want one, but they can't 'make you' take it. They like to display 'inspirational verses' there will be scriptures written on white boards, or large sheets of paper on a stand, or stuck on the walls. They often use religious centers or halls on church grounds for meetings, though most often do not actually meet in the church itself.

 

Of course, they claim you can pick your own 'higher power'. Right. The way 'Higher Power' is used, it's obvious they just replaced the word 'God' with it. It's one of those 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more!' situations.

 

This is not an isolated case either, I've run across more than one 12 step meeting, though I only participated in the one group myself. All of the ones I've come across were like that.

 

Publicly they state that 'your higher power can be a rock', but that's not really true. It's just a PR line they use to try and dissuade those who try to attack their use of public funds for religious purposes [rightly so] and heavy [and unconstitutional] promotion and use by the US court system.

 

Courts have no business sending people to them for drug related crimes or charges. Just about any other treatment program I've got no issues with, but Twelve Step is just religious BS and has no business being promoted in or by the court systems.

 

It's about as much a 'treatment program' as intelligent design is a 'scientific theory'.

 

It's willfully preying on people who are weak or not in their best decision making state because of their addictions. Taking advantage of their state to further a religious agenda.

 

It's downright disgusting.

 

Also, they have the exact same success rate as people who quit in the same manner as I did, around 10%. Though they often lie about that and don't easily release records about it.

 

It's not any more successful than just plain quitting. What few records have been pried from their closely guarded chests by force support that claim.

 

12 step programs and the Boy Scouts should both be cut off from public funding and support. There's too much religion in both of them for either of them to be receiving public funds. The way the courts use 12 step programs is just plain unconstitutional and should be stopped. There are better options for treatment.

[Mriana]

I should add that one can use drugs to get over an addiction disease as well. There is the patch for smoking for example, and there is some drug that makes a person ill if he/she takes alcohol.

 

Yes you are very right Chefranden.

[Mriana]

Addiction is not a natural chemical problem. That's why it's not an 'illness'. It's an outside issue that's willfully caused by the addict. They choose to inflict it on themselves, illnesses don't work that way.

 

Actually, it is a chemical issue in the brain. Cocaine for example blocks the reuptake of dopamine. Various drugs either stimulate neuro-chemicals or block the re-uptake of them. Eventually, this can become a neuro-chemical problem because the brain eventually craves a curtain chemical or it doesn't know what to do with one. Eventually, for the majority of people, will-power isn't going to work. You were just one of those rare people who didn't need help.

 

That's not within the profile of 'illness' or 'disease'. It's definitely a disorder, but disorder is not a synonym for illness or disease either. They are related terms, but are not the same thing.

 

Again, disorders are illnesses.

 

We're pretty much just splitting hairs on terminology.

 

Yup, pretty much.

 

Though I also admit I tend to avoid people who promote 12 step programs. I despise twelve step programs, it's about the worst thing you can do to help an addict by sending them to one.

 

I am not promoting 12-step. There are many other treatment programs. In fact, I do not consider 12-step a treatment program. I am talking time in a facility that actually treats substance abuse and have nothing to do with religion and they are NOT 12 step programs. I don't know where you got the idea I was promoting such a thing. I already said I was not. I am talking about an actual treatment program ran by psychologists, psychiatrists, and doctors. Again, I said nothing about 12 step anything, so there was no need for the rant.

[DarthOkkata]

I am not promoting 12-step. There are many other treatment programs. In fact, I do not consider 12-step a treatment program. I am talking time in a facility that actually treats substance abuse and have nothing to do with religion and they are NOT 12 step programs. I don't know where you got the idea I was promoting such a thing. I already said I was not. I am talking about an actual treatment program ran by psychologists, psychiatrists, and doctors. Again, I said nothing about 12 step anything, so there was no need for the rant.

 

I never said or implied you promoted or had anything to do with twelve step programs. You already said that you did not.

 

I was not making accusations. I was giving my opinion about twelve step programs in response to this:

 

12-step is nothing but a support group IMO.

 

So, yes you did say something about 12-step programs.

 

I think it's more than 'a support group', and not in a good way.

 

It's also the only place I've ever heard of anyone referring to addiction as a disease before. Disorder I've heard plenty of times, but the idea that addiction is a disease is something that as far as I know, originates from 12 step programs.

 

disorder -transitive verb

 

1 to disturb the order of 2 to disturb the regular or normal functions of.

 

Illness -noun

 

1 an incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, nutritional deficiency or imbalance. Syn: disease; sickness; ailment.

 

They aren't even the same part of speech. They are not synonyms.

 

Related terms yes, but synonyms, afraid not.

 

Addicts are not 'sick'. Substance abuse can and often does lead to health problems, but it is not an illness in and of itself. Substance abuse is not an unhealthy condition by itself, but it can often cause them.

 

A person who smokes cigarettes can contract Lung Cancer and other health problems because of their addiction, but they are not ill because they smoke cigarettes and are addicted to nicotine. They become ill because of things related to the usage of cigarettes, but the cigarette usage itself is not an illness.

 

I like to have a beer sometimes, the act of drinking beer does not make mean I have an illness. It's true I'm not an alcoholic either, but the beer and it's usage is not the health problem that would qualify as an illness. The liver problems that could result from alcohol abuse, sure, but the alcohol ingestion itself? No, it's not.

 

I still stand by my statement that you are wrong here. Once again, it's not really that important that we agree, but I don't think that you are right either.

[agnosticator]

Illness -noun

 

1 an incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, nutritional deficiency or imbalance. Syn: disease; sickness; ailment.

 

They aren't even the same part of speech. They are not synonyms.

 

Related terms yes, but synonyms, afraid not.

 

Addicts are not 'sick'. Substance abuse can and often does lead to health problems, but it is not an illness in and of itself. Substance abuse is not an unhealthy condition by itself, but it can often cause them.

 

I agree with you, DarthOkkata. But there is evidence scientists have found that drugs change the brain. Both of you are right in a way. See this article:http://www.issues.org/17.3/leshner.htm

[Mriana]

Actually, addiction, like depression, bipolar, and other genetic disorders, can be genetic and I see the genetic relationship very well in my relatives.

[DarthOkkata]

Actually, addiction, like depression, bipolar, and other genetic disorders, can be genetic and I see the genetic relationship very well in my relatives.

 

True, but that doesn't automatically qualify it as a disease either.

 

Genetics can make you more vulnerable to things, but it does not necessarily mean that you will definitely acquire the condition either.

 

Just because a family has a genetic vulnerability to certain types of cancer, Bi-polar, and other diseases or disorders does not mean that an individual person will ever have them. The genetic vulnerability is not a disease, nor does it make the particular problem you're vulnerable to a disease by default.

 

It just means a person should be more mindful of certain things because of their family's genetic history.

 

Alcoholism might run in your family, it does in mine, but that doesn't make me an Alcoholic or mean that I will become one. I drink, just not often. It's not because I'm particularly mindful about it. I just don't drink much, most of the time I'd rather have something non alcoholic. I don't dislike alcohol, but it's not something I enjoy doing frequently. I sometimes enjoy being a little drunk, but I dislike getting really drunk. I don't like the way it feels.

 

Addiction is often the result of how someone uses a particular substance. A person who drinks to 'wind down', 'help them relax', or 'relieve stress' is more likely to become an alcoholic than someone who does not associate drinking with a particular mindset or physical condition.

 

It becomes a sort of 'security blanket' and an individual will start drinking whenever they feel that way. Which often results in Alcoholism.

 

Some substances are more dangerous, and only require a few uses for chemical dependence to take hold. It depends and varies from substance to substance.

 

Another reason why addiction does not qualify as disease is that it's not consistent enough. Every substance that a person can be addicted to causes different health problems and risks, has different symptoms, causes different dependence issues, and even differs greatly from person to person. Some people can become addicted to cocaine after a single use, where as others can use for a couple of months and still not qualify as an addict, even stopping use with no ill effects.

 

A genetic vulnerability for something in some people is not enough to qualify it as a disease. It just means that it's easier for it to happen to you because of your genes. The genetic vulnerability is not the cause of the problem.

 

You can have a genetic disposition toward being Lactose Intolerant, but that doesn't mean that being Lactose Intolerant is a disease either. [it's not, though it can be caused by certain diseases. Lactose intolerance is the normal state for most adults on a worldwide scale, and is not considered a disease.]

 

Addiction is similar, it's not a disease, and is considered the 'normal state' for most regular users of certain substances. Some are more addictive than others, and the level of 'normality' of addiction varies from substance to substance.

 

For example, Heroin users have a much higher rate of addiction than Alcohol users.

 

Symptoms of addiction also greatly vary dependent upon which substance is being abused. Heroin doesn't cause the same kind of chemical imbalance and has different physiological effects than a person who is addicted to Coke, or Extacy.

 

As I mentioned, addiction is not a disease, but it can cause them. This would include the chemical imbalance caused by substance abuse in the brain. The imbalance may indeed develop into a disease, but the act of using whatever substance causes it is not the disease. It is merely the catalyst that caused the disease. Much like cigarette use and Lung Cancer, cigarettes are not the disease, but the Lung Cancer caused by their use is a disease.

 

Addiction just doesn't qualify as a disease. It's just too varied and inconsistent, and it's a willful and intentional act. It's based on choice, a person willfully uses the source of the addiction.

 

If it's an illness and a disease, why is it a legal problem instead of a medical one?

 

How many cancer patients do we lock up for having an illness? Why isn't it treated like a disease?

 

Why doesn't the Center for Disease Control deal with it instead of Law Enforcement and the Legal system? CDC is certainly interested in diseases -caused- by addiction, such as HIV transmitted through needles, and more indirectly prostitution, and in the case of say, cigarettes, Lung Cancer. However, addiction itself, according to them, isn't a disease. It's certainly not in their index of diseases.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/a.html

 

It's not treated like a disease, clinics or not, there is no consistent or effective treatment. Success rates are about 10-20% across the board. Treatment options vary wildly with no real consensus on how to deal with it. Diseases are not treated in such a manner. It varies from psychological treatment, drugs, counseling, group therapy, individual therapy, massage therapy, journal keeping, giving yourself up to a higher power, pairing with a partner, and an assortment of inconsistent and wildly varying techniques.

 

No other 'disease' is dealt with in this manner.

 

There are too many reasons why it's not a disease, and too few to claim that it is. I still don't buy it. It's a disorder to be certain, but it is most definitely not a disease. It just doesn't qualify, no matter who is using the terminology to refer to it as such. If someone is calling it that, then they are in error, and using the term more loosely than they should.