StevenSlate

It's not that I don't believe heavy use can be immoral. It can be. My quote in that section is "I DO NOT believe that substance use per se is immoral or bad, nor that heavy substance use is necessarily immoral or bad either." I used the word necessarily to denote that it could be immoral contextually. This list of beliefs is an attempt to preempt the attacks I constantly receive in comments and hatemail. The disease model defenders have a strawman they constantly use, which is to say that anyone who doesn't believe in the disease model thinks addiction is "a moral failing." They then proceed to portray critics as wanting to send every substance user to jail, and call them pieces of trash and generally be mean to them. These are not my views, yet they get ascribed to me often, and so again, that whole bit is to preempt these attacks.

I don't see addiction "as a moral failing", and I don't want to bring morality into the discussion, because it's a topic with a lot of baggage mixed up in religions and cultures and whatnot. And, this goes into my category of "costs" that people who use substances problematically are already well aware of, and which haven't made them stop so far. Mark Scheeren really pressed the importance of this point on me, as his experience was that harping on moral issues usually does no good. People already feel guilt and shame over their behaviors and this just heaps on more. But our insight is that people choose to change when they see the change as better (the all around happier option). I see how being more moral can be part of that for people, and those for whom moral views are important will make that part of their vision of greater happiness in change.

Also, I have my own personal views on morality that are probably at odds with yours (you being whoever I'm engaging with on changing a substance use habit) in some way. I don't want to get into arguing them since it's as personal as religion and politics. I want to get across the points that you are in control of yourself already, and if you become convinced that a change is your happier option, you will easily carry it out. I say it's easy, because it's just not making choices once you don't believe those things will make you happier - not having the fifth drink, or the first drink, or the cocaine, or whatever.

Someone else answered to this well. We're using happiness and happier option as really wide terms in TFM, they can include concern for others if that's how you see it. They don't just refer to pleasure, or relief of pain, or joy, bliss, fulfillment, connection with others, etc - the terms refer to the whole ball of wax, which is going to be structured in countless ways in each individual's mind according to their own views, values, whatever. There is clarification on this throughout the book. This is basically a "psychological egoism" philosophy of motivation here, so that even if people believe they should live fully altruistically like a Mother Teresa or something, and that's because they believe it's god's command for them to behave that way and it makes them a good person and possibly rewards them in the afterlife, then being altruistic is still what makes them (their self) happy at the end of the day.

We're not going to try to instill any particular set of morals or values in people though. We see that as overstepping our bounds. If that's what someone thinks they need, they can go get religion or whatever they find helpful for that as part of their decision-making process. We want to show people they are in control, their motivation comes from what they judge as the best choice, and that change comes in judging different choices to be better (happier).