Addiction: Nature versus Nurture

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Psychology is a developing science which studies the mental functions, processes, and behaviors of an individual. In the science of psychology, many debates arise; nature vs. nurture is one of the most popular ones. These psychological debates are followed by research, backing up either nature or nurture or both. Nature suggest heredity impacts human psychological development; nurture suggests the environment impacts our psychological development. Addiction plays a large role in nature vs. nurture. Addiction is defined as a person being attached to a certain activity or item; an addict is one who has a dependency on particular substances or activity. There are many debates on whether addiction is caused by genes or the environment. Many researchers believe if they had the answer of addiction being a genetic condition or an environmental factor, they would be able to resolve the problem of addicts, or so they believe.

If you think of life and existence in general as a canvas, meaning all of time included simultaneously, the past, present and future. Within that canvas lie certain sets of options(choices) which are available to us at any given moment. The path that we found ourselves are predetermined by factors we had no control over. Your genetic make up, for instance, you had nothing to do with. You can’t take credit for not having the brain of a psychopath, the brain of the mentally disabled person, genetic predisposition to cancer and you name it. The actions of others impact the options (choices) available to you-the actions of those around affects your will because it can change the choices that are available to you at any given moment. If certain

In order to better understand addiction as a disease as opposed to a moral dilemma it first must be broken down. First you must look at the way in which the chemicals affect the brain. The first attempt at partaking in any mind altering substance can be looked at as a choice to the individual. However what happens after that first

Some people continue to believe an addiction is nothing but a choice. If presented well, it could make a valid argument along

It also depends on how we explain free will; free will in this case is how one acts out on their own will. Our genetics can determine how we can act. When our

Some have characterized addiction as a behavioral choice and can be controlled voluntarily. There is an interview with Gene M Heyman a professor at Harvard University, as the conversation around his ideas of addiction being a voluntary decision and why anyone would want to volunteer to be an addict. Gene Hymens findings are and what they mean. The author argues what has been said about addiction in so many studies, “drug addiction is a Disease” this means it is not a choice. Heyman states it is simply an act of voluntary choice. While he does not pretend to be a policy expert, he does believe that treatment should consist of non-drug activities to lower the value of the “drug.” (Akst, Daniel)

Some proponents of free will argue that by choosing to do something, one causes oneself to act. One could have caused oneself to act in another manner, and therefore the act, although caused by that person, is still a free choice. However, that notion is held under scrutiny because a person who acts freely has no evidence that they have acted of his or her own accord. For all one knows, one’s actions and choices could have been causally determined, and although one thought one was acting out of free will, one is not. There is no definite proof to show that one’s choices are made freely. As A.J. Ayer stated in his essay, Freedom and Necessity, “…but from the fact that a man is unaware of the causes of his action, it does not follow that no such causes exist” (Ayer 272). Since there is no way of knowing if one exercises free will, determinism poses a serious threat to the concept of free thinking and free acting human beings.

Epictetus explains again and again that this is a matter of the will’s not being prevented from making the choices it sees fit to make, of its being impossible to force it to make any choice other than it would want to make. There is no force or power in the world which can force your will so long as it is free. The planets cannot force your choice. Even God cannot take

Edward Wilson writes in his excerpt on the essay “On Free Will”, that most scientists tend to leave the subject to the philosophers. He says,

Our genes are responsible for our hair color, health and behavioral characteristics. Passed on by our parents, these genes may also be responsible for addiction. Parents can pass on genetic traits that make their children predisposed to addiction.

Consider the following scenario: John and his mother are both alcoholics. John has been exposed to his mother’s inappropriate relationship with alcohol since before he was born. In the age-old debate of nature vs. nurture, some would say it was merely natural for John to follow his mother’s path, a la the apple does not fall far from the tree—his addiction was inherited. Others would argue that John’s childhood experiences and home environment led him on the road to addiction. Many might question whether John would have fared better if he had been raised elsewhere. While John may have been a victim of circumstance or fate, a completely different angle can be considered. Perhaps John’s alcoholism is a genetic result—a result that was influenced by his unfortunate environmental factors. In other words, John inherited his nature via his nurture. The positions surrounding the explanation of John’s outcome have been debated for centuries by ordinary people, philosophers, geneticists and psychologists. With recent advancements, a second genome has been recognized and established as the “epigenome,” which is directly influenced by the outside environment (Francis). While extreme positions still exist within the nature vs. nurture debate, most scientists now agree that a combination of the two determines one's outcome; with the burgeoning field of epigenetics, however, the ability to overcome one's genes, to some extent, ends the debate and offers hope that can be viewed as American

Should the cause of addiction rely on people 's actions? These days, drugs can be found everywhere, and it may seem like everyone 's doing them. Lots of people are tempted by the excitement or escape that drugs seem to offer. But learning the facts about drugs can help one see the risks of chasing this excitement or escape. Several people argue whether drug addiction is a disease or a choice. Discussing this argument in hopes to have a better understanding as to why this topic is so controversial. For those on the other side of the argument they claim just the opposite. According to a source on the Internet entitled "Saint Jude Retreat House", alcoholism and drug addiction are not diseases because those types of behaviors can be avoided and there is help available to change these behaviors.To call addiction a disease and not a choice, evidence will need to show the flaws in calling addiction a choice, show how drugs of abuse work, how addiction fits into the disease model, identify what organ is primarily affected, and be able to recognize what the symptoms of drug addiction are. There are some very educated individuals who believe that addition is a behavior and that behaviors are a result of choices. According to Gene Heyman, a Harvard psychologist, drug addiction is a choice, not a disease. In his book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, Heyman states that "addiction is not a disease and that it is a pattern of persistent but

I am sure that nearly every couple, whether they be newlyweds or not, at some point discusses and dreams of having a little bundle of joy to bring into the world and expand their little family. They long for the gift of a baby and the responsibilities of parenthood that accompany it. Most couples or single parents will do anything and everything to protect their child/children and give them the world. However, not everyone does so. A growing problem, not only in my area, but across the United States is infants being born addicted to some type of drug whether it simple be cigarettes, or something harsher such as an addiction to prescription pills.

From John Locke’s blank slate to modern scientists arguments, nature versus nurture is one of the most debated topic in psychology. Nature refers to genes and hereditary features that plays a role in a person’s growth, whereas nurture refers to any environmental stimuli that contribute to the development of behaviors. A lot of people though believe that nature and nurture are separate, only one can influence a person. In this modern era, majority of experts and people will now agree that both equally contribute in influencing people’s behavior and personality. Nature and nurture interact with each other in order to make each individual person unique. This paper is mainly going to focus on how nature and nurture influence substance abuse, memory defect in mice, the progression of prosocial behavior, aggression, empathy, and consciousness.