Commentary Do addicts have free will? An empirical approach to a vexing question

In this article we will discuss two duplicate questions. Is addiction possible for spontaneous detoxification? Do you pursue actions that individuals intentionally think to be harmful, such as drug abuse?

I propose two free versions of the test version. First, the extent to which activities are affected by their results (eg cost and benefit) has been proven to be a useful criterion for classifying behaviors as voluntary or non-voluntary. Therefore, we can ask if addictive drug use is affected by the result. For example, does the law promising legal sanctions against drug use reduce narcotic drug use by drug addicts? Secondly, philosopher Harry Frankfurt proposed a definition of free will that took into account desire and self-reflection. I do not want to take medicine, and drug addicts who do not want to stop taking medicine recommend that he pass his exam.

Dependence on illegal drugs usually ends in about 4 to 6 years. Dependence on tobacco and alcohol lasts long, but most smokers and alcohol dependents will voluntarily quit smoking. Smokers and heroin addicts can voluntarily adjust the desire for a medicine based on the availability of the selected medicine. They have the ability to pass the free will test in Frankfurt

Addicts have free will, ability to quit smoking voluntarily, and ability to adjust their desires voluntarily.

Freedom of choice for drug addicts is also questioned, addiction is defined as compulsive, and addiction itself recognizes that it is to suppress individual freedom. Similarly, the idea that addictive drugs are legalized, regulated, and open to "free market dynamics" is immediately recognized as the drug market for drug users no longer being a free market I will. I need their medicine. Authors such as Aldous Huxley and Terence McKenna believe that what individuals should do should not be regulated by the government. Some people think that they should be able to do anything with their bodies, including the use of recreational drugs, unless they hurt others.

Candy Swell Shelby monograph provides a new, empirical, philosophical explanation of addiction, which reveals its treatment in addiction's personal lives and society. This method is unique because it is based on empirical research on addiction based on various fields of theoretical philosophy. She considers treating addiction as a disease or choice is a false dichotomy, and explains the addiction as a new process of a complicated process. Shelby's mission is ambitious as it involves advanced theoretical problems in the philosophy of thinking and language, the philosophy of metaphysics and science, and also ties them to empirical data on poisoning and literature. However, in page numbers (over 177 notes and references) it is almost impossible to use empirical data to clarify the stoichiometry. Shelby's attempt deserves praise, but occasionally her business seems reluctant

The essence of philosophy is always a troublesome philosophical problem, but it is particularly persistent now. Of course you can not call it your own field of empirical facts. All real estate was split. One answer that can be obtained when the logical empiricism flourishes is that after the science has gone away the real philosophical surplus is somewhat deeper than the empirical science and perhaps anything that is culturally related is of any experience It is bigger than science science. It is deeper and more important. You can solve it. This is because in this concept philosophy has a pattern of acquisition or "evidence" that empirical science can not possess or possess, because the loyalty of evidence and the thought of prudent discussions are somewhat cautious is.