Moral Reasoning and the alcoholic
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Moral Reasoning and the alcoholic
I was reading a study the other day that the moral reasoning (in other words a battery for morality in individuals) was no different between alcoholics and non alcoholics.
This makes huge amounts of sense to me.
This makes huge amounts of sense to me.
learning
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I need to be
Posts: 310
Other than the fact that you can’t accurately measure “moral reasoning” and that there is a difference in any individuals reasoning when drinking and when not, yeah I’m sure it makes perfect sense.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Zion, Illinois
Posts: 3,411
Originally Posted by Five
I was reading a study the other day that the moral reasoning (in other words a battery for morality in individuals) was no different between alcoholics and non alcoholics.
This makes huge amounts of sense to me.
This makes huge amounts of sense to me.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by bartender129
Other than the fact that you can’t accurately measure “moral reasoning” and that there is a difference in any individuals reasoning when drinking and when not, yeah I’m sure it makes perfect sense.
Which makes more sense to than the usual "we are sociapaths" argument.
Last edited by Five; 11-16-2005 at 06:37 AM. Reason: bad grammer
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Here is said article, highlighted in bold is the study I mentioned.
Perspectives - Vol. 4, No. 2 - The Morality of Alcoholism - Page 1 of 2
Gary S. Stofle
This article is based upon ideas originally presented at the 1985 NASW Professional Symposium: "The People, Yes!" on November 9, 1985.
The morality of alcoholism is a topic seldom on the agenda of workshops concerning alcoholism, or dealt with as a topic by itself in the literature. And yet moral issues regarding alcoholism are often talked about among professionals and is a topic in many counseling sessions. Morality is a difficult subject to deal with in any context. Issues of right and wrong, shame and guilt are brought up in almost every group or individual counseling session. The powerlessness, helplessness and angry feelings the worker experiences doing this work are often related to basic moral issues. The newly detoxed alcoholic is flooded with affect and is supersensitive to how others present themselves. The workers understanding of moral issues and alcoholism is essential to effective helping. If the worker blames the alcoholic, or has an attitude of blame, the worker and alcoholic often dont connect and the work will be stuck.
Much confusion exists about the morality of alcoholism. Alcoholics are often confused when they enter treatment full of shame and remorse then are told they are not responsible for their alcoholism. Family members are confused when the alcoholic enters treatment " the bad guy " and somewhere in treatment becomes " the good guy ". Workers are confused when alcoholics bring feelings out in them unlike no other population. Philosophers are confused when they hear "disease concept" and then think what is being said is the alcoholic is not morally responsible.
THE PROBLEM
The problem is clear - there exits two very opposing moral views of alcoholism. The immoral view has a long, documented history and persists strongly in society to the present day. The immoralists view the alcoholic as not having morals. They also use words such as "sinful" or "moral weaklings" when describing alcoholics. (1) At the other extreme, amoralists divorce morality from alcoholism citing the disease concept as evidence. The amoralist tells a patient/client: "you're not a bad person trying to get good, you're a sick person trying to get well!" (2) Neither view is an accurate perception of reality. Workers and others holding either view are unable to effectively tune in to the alcoholic's struggles regarding moral issues.
Despite what many people observe, many alcoholics must endure a profound and constant internal struggle regarding morality. The morning after a drunken episode can be a horrific time for alcoholics - the feelings of guilt, shame and powerlessness can be overwhelming. Many alcoholics feel these feelings because they are moral beings and their actions from the previous evening do not correspond to their value system. Again, in the midst of guilt and self-loathing, they will make a heartfelt promise to not repeat the actions of the previous evening. However, they are doomed to act immorally until they begin recovery. The immoralists are unable or unwilling to tune into this moral struggle (the alcoholic should simply choose to not drink!). The amoralists are accepting and aware of the struggle, but fail to explain the process.
THE IMMORALISTS
The alcoholic has a long history of being viewed as morally inferior. Aristotle, while he did not write specifically using the work alcoholic, wrote that a person who drinks to excess is responsible for whatever happens. (3) He used an example of two blind men. One was born blind, the other became blind after a long period of drinking alcohol. Aristotle said the man born blind is in no way responsible for his blindness and should be helped and pitied by others. He said the drunkard should be condemned because he brought it on himself. The drunkards blindness is a logical and deserved consequence of his wrong choice of behavior. It could be safely said that this attitude towards the alcoholic still exists today.
Other philosophers, all of whom have helped to form our system of morals and values, share beliefs similar to Aristotle. Kant's views are the most explicit. He, and many other philosophers, view alcoholics as having a choice over whether or not they drink - the action of becoming drunk is a voluntary one, so the person who gets drunk can be held responsible on a moral level.
Society has ascribed to these views as evidenced by the fact that alcoholics have been jailed just for being alcoholics in the past. (4) At worst, alcoholics have been killed or left to die because of society's views and from a lack of knowledge concerning treatment of alcoholism as well. At best, alcoholics have been laughed at, scorned, pitied and/or run out of town. Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease (5) illustrates the current day immoralists who arent so much concerned with labeling alcoholics "sinful" as they are in denying the possibility of alcoholism as a disease.
A very real and potentially fatal consequence of holding an immoralist view of alcoholism concerns the difficulty of getting help for the alcoholic. The alcoholic may have been socialized in a home where alcoholism was viewed as a moral failing and the alcoholic viewed as a "sinner" or moral weakling. Being raised with such a set of beliefs will strongly inhibit that alcoholic from admitting their alcoholism and from seeking help. Family members will not seek help for themselves or the alcoholic, except in extreme cases, to avoid the shame and disgrace. This scenario has been played out many, many times over many years. It is particularly difficult for a family member to reconcile their view of alcoholism with the fact that their family member, whom they love and respect, could be an alcoholic and thus a moral weakling. Alcoholics with this view would logically hold onto their system of denial more strongly than an alcoholic who was raised to view alcoholism as a treatable disease. Although the alcoholic who believes in the immoral view towards alcoholism will be less likely to seek or be involved in treatment for alcoholism, he or she will seek medical attention for secondary physical problems. However, alcoholism cannot usually be arrested without being treated directly.
The newest form of the immoralists also can result in the alcoholic not seeking services as well because they often espouse the view of moderation to the person with the problem with alcohol. While there are many people who drink excessively and then moderate their drinking, this discussion revolves around those people who have been unsuccessful in moderating their drinking despite attempts to do so.
THE AMORALISTS
Two proponents of the amoralist view of alcoholism are James Milam and Katherine Ketcham. Milam and Ketchem are quoted below:
The alcoholic must also understand that he is not responsible for the things he said or did when he was drinking. The physical addiction controlled his behavior, and because he is powerless over the addiction, he cannot be held responsible for it. When the alcoholic looks back at his life as a drinking alcoholic, he should learn to say, "That's what alcoholism did to me", not "That's what I did." Saying the words "I am an alcoholic" should convey the same moral overtones as the words, "I am allergic to pollen". (6)
Milam and Ketcham are correct when they state that the alcoholic should not be held morally responsible for actions during active alcoholism. However, they and most authors in the field fail to give any justification for the lack of moral responsibility beyond the disease concept. It is felt that a blanket statement such as "The alcoholic... is not responsible for the things he said or did when he was drinking" is inappropriate. If the alcoholic is not physically responsible for actions while drinking, several questions immediately come to mind. Who is responsible for the bad checks the alcoholic wrote while on a spree? Who is responsible for repairing the next door neighbors' car he ran into while drunk? Who ought to apologize to his son for not going to the son's graduation as promised and instead goes to the bar? Why should the alcoholics feel guilty if they are not at least physically responsible? How can alcoholics be motivated towards recovery if they are not responsible? These are questions that the amoralists do not answer.
The problem with amoral point of view usually becomes evident on an individual basis during treatment. Often alcoholics enter treatment at least partially aware of their inappropriate behaviors during active alcoholism. As alcoholics are detoxed and progress in treatment, much of the time they become more aware of their inappropriate behaviors from the past, and are often filled with shame and remorse. At this point, alcoholics hear something like this from the worker: "you're not a bad person trying to get good, you're a sick person trying to get well!" or "it's a disease, it is not a moral issue!" Alcoholics understandably become confused. If I have not done "bad" things, why do I feel so guilty about the things I have done? How can what they are saying be true when I know I have done "bad" things while drinking? They may think the disease concept too convenient or just something made up to help him or her with guilt. To abruptly dismiss the moral issues of alcoholism can place additional pressures or stress on the alcoholic and does not provide enough information for alcoholics to be able to successfully resolve their guilt and shame.
Acceptance of the disease concept is placed in jeopardy by the amoralists. Immoralists tend to feel angry when the amoralists state the alcoholic is not responsible because of the disease. This anger probably prompted one person to write: "the disease concept gives reprieve to the odious alcohol sinner." The divorce of moral issues from alcoholism also reinforces the immoralists in their view of alcoholism. When a worker in a family service agency sees children emotionally scarred because of an alcoholic parent, they will say "there is something wrong or bad going on." When a physician has to wrestle with a drunk in an ER, they will say "there is something wrong here". When a family hears their daughter has been killed by a drunken driver, they know something is wrong. It is wrong for innocent lives to be taken. The reality is this rightness and wrongness (Morality) needs to be talked about in the context of alcoholism - to not do so is being unrealistic. If moral issues in the context of alcoholism are not talked about, the immoralists and amoralist will continue to exist in their absolutes.
Another side to the amoral view is the alcoholic who is actively drinking and telling friends and family "I can't help it, I've got a disease". This person is correct in that he has a disease, but like the above examples, he does not possess all of the appropriate information concerning morality and alcoholism. And the reality is that society will hold this person legally responsible, at the very least, for his actions.
The immoralists are right in the fact that alcoholics commit wrong or harmful acts while actively alcoholic. This piece of information can be verified by almost anyone with personal or professional experience with alcoholics. But the immoralists are misinformed in their belief that drinking by the alcoholic is voluntary (a matter of choice), or that drinking or not drinking is a question of lack of moral development or "willpower".
The amoralists are correct when they infer that the alcoholic is not morally responsible for actions in active alcoholism, but they fail to explain to colleagues and clients why this should be so, beyond stating it is a disease. But the amoralists are incorrect when they infer that the alcoholic is not physically responsible. All members of society, whatever their impairment, are held responsible to at least some degree of their action.
WHAT HOLDS THIS PROBLEM IN PLACE
The problem concerning the two opposing views of morality and alcoholism is held in place by several factors. The immoralist view, which states the alcoholic is morally deficient, is firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of many, and has been for centuries. Such a firmly entrenched view has been and will be very difficult to change. Social workers will readily attest to the difficulty in changing views developed over a very small part of a lifespan. The view that alcoholics are immoral is also held by some helping professionals. All the techniques and skills developed by professionals over the years had been inadequate to treat alcoholism (7) until the advent of Alcoholics Anonymous and the knowledge base and skills concerning alcoholism as a primary disease. And yet the disease concept is clearly not universally accepted by members of the helping professions.
Another factor that holds this problem in place concerns a common characteristic of many human beings - a characteristic that social workers are trained to overcome. That characteristic is that many of us have a tendency to think that everyone is on the same psychological wavelength as we are. (8) Another way to state this phenomenon is to say we believe that people are able to do the things that we are able to do. A person who doesn't have a problem with alcohol may drink too much on an occasion. That person wakes up, feels uncomfortable or embarrassed and makes a decision not to drink that much anymore and doesn't. He has a friend who is alcoholic (diagnosed or undiagnosed) and tells that friend to "just drink a couple, and you'll be OK". It worked for the first man, but didn't for the second, because the second man has a disease. The first man notices a big difference between the two and uses the following logic: A. I'm a good, moral man who stopped drinking when I saw it as a problem. B. Good, moral men can stop drinking when it's a problem. C. You must not be a good, moral man because you can't stop drinking after two like me.
The alcoholic drinks more than two because of an irresistible inner compulsion. It is very difficult for most people to understand compulsion unless it has been personally experienced. Compulsion doesn't make sense because it bypasses logic and rationality. However, when compulsion is understood, the unpredictable actions of the alcoholic begin to make more sense. When the worker understands compulsion, he or she is able to connect with the alcoholic.
A NEW PERSPECTIVE
Morality in the context of alcoholism can be viewed as a moral/physical dualism where alcoholics are not morally responsible for their behavior during the active alcoholism, but they are always physically responsible for their behavior. Each piece of the moral/physical dualism will be explained below.
That alcoholics are not morally responsible for their actions can be expressed in other ways: not blameworthy on a moral level; not morally culpable; or morally excusable. Each of these ideas will be discussed in more detail later in this article.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DUALISTIC CONCEPT
This article has four specific arguments for workers and others to adopt the dualistic concept or moral/physical responsibility in their work with the alcoholic. These are explained below:
Argument # 1: Biochemistry. "To behave morally is to have internalized control over behavior that inhibits harmful act and facilitates beneficent acts". (9) One of the first effects of drinking alcohol is disinhibition. Disinhibition is an effect noticed in all drinkers; it is not confined to alcoholics. As the blood alcohol level rises in the drinker, reason and judgment are progressively more affected until the drinker is physically unable to be rational or to use his or her judgment. The drinker at this point is unable to act morally.
Mention should be made at this point of two studies done to determine if there exist significant differences in Kohlberg's moral reasoning levels between alcoholics/addicts and socioeconomically matched controls. Both studies discovered there is no significant difference. (10) Also, both studies pointed to the problem being located in what Kohlberg called "ego controls"(11) rather than in the ability to reason morally at a socially acceptable level. It is these ego controls which are sedated by the drug alcohol. Rationality and judgment are what separates human beings from other animals. Indeed, systems of thought regarding morality are based upon the premise that the agent is rational and can use judgment (choose between alternatives). It is easy to understand why Kant states: "....when a man is drunk, he is simply like a beast, not to be treated as a human being..." (12) The lack of ability to be moral (to be reasonable, to use judgment and make a right choice of action) is easily observable in an intoxicated person. Kant and other philosophers (and mankind in general) have made this observation. Kant's anger seems to be caused by his belief that the drunkard chooses to place himself in such a state. However, research is showing that the alcoholic does not choose to drink; in fact be definition, the alcoholic is powerless over drinking alcohol. In treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, alcoholics learn skills for dealing with their powerlessness over alcohol and so can arrest the disease. The concept of choice in alcoholism will be further examined under the next argument.
When drunk, a person is experiencing a drug induced organic brain syndrome, which is reversible after the alcohol has been metabolized, and is similar in its effects on behavior to Organic Brain Syndrome (OBS). As a society, we do not hold persons with OBS morally responsible for their behavior. But because of society's lack of understanding of the biochemistry of alcohol on the CNS and because of their long held belief that the alcoholic chooses to put himself in such a state, society holds the alcoholic morally responsible for his actions.
The reader at this point may say, "Okay, I know enough to realize that when a person drinks enough they are physically unable to act morally. But I've seen plenty of social drinkers who get drunk and don't beat up their kids or other people, or they aren't obnoxious like most of the alcoholics I've run into. Why the difference?" This point is well taken. A specific reason exits for the difference - the amount of emotional pain in the drinker. As with all drugs, set and setting affects how alcohol affects the drinker. While the social drinker may be in emotional pain before drinking, that is not usually the case by definition. The social drinker drinks to be "social", to have a good time with others. The social drinker does not drink to relieve emotional pain. However, the alcoholic almost always is in emotional pain. The alcoholic has a realization of previous inappropriate behaviors while drinking (and the guilt associated with that). The broken promises and dreams in the alcoholic's life is a source of ongoing emotional pain. The huge gulf between the ideal self and the actual self in the alcoholic is a source of tremendous emotional pain. If one assumes the inescapable link between pain and anger, and one tunes into the sources of emotional pain cited above (to say nothing of the shame/stigma and the physical pain brought on by the medical consequences of alcoholism), it is easy to understand why the alcoholic acts out in an angry manner. The social drinker does not have this pain, so does not act out in the same manner.
Society must hold the alcoholic physically responsible for his or her behavior, much in the same way it holds the criminally insane responsible for their actions (not to imply that alcoholics are criminally insane). When a criminally insane person (one who is unable to distinguish right from wrong) performs an act which society considers harmful, that person is isolated from society (to protect society and the person) and treated until such a time when professionals can make a judgment that this person will be able to conform to the rules of society.
Argument #2. Aristotle clearly delineates when a person is not morally responsible for his or her actions.(13) He uses two concepts to judge whether or not a person should be held morally responsible for an action. Both concepts are applied to the moral/physical dualism of responsibility. The reader should keep in mind these two concepts are not use by Aristotle in regards to alcoholism; Aristotle holds the drunkard morally responsible for actions because he considers the act of drinking to drunkenness as voluntary.
Aristotle describes two basic types of actions - voluntary and involuntary. He further states:
...it is only voluntary actions for which praise and blame are given; those that are involuntary are condoned, and sometimes even pitied.... It is generally held that actions are involuntary when done a) under compulsion or b) through ignorance.(14)
Aristotle further divides ignorance into avoidable and unavoidable ignorance. The agent is morally responsible if he is avoidably ignorant; he is morally excusable if he is unavoidably ignorant. An example of avoidable ignorance is a person who shoots another with a gun saying "I did not know the gun was loaded". He should have avoided ignorance by taking the time to check the gun. He would be held morally responsible. An example of unavoidable ignorance would be if a person invites another for a ride in the car and during the drive, the car is hit by another car. The driver was unavoidably ignorant of the fact that they were going to be involved in an accident. There is no way the driver could have informed himself about the accident before he asked his friends along. He is unavoidably ignorant and thus morally excusable.
The alcoholic is unavoidably ignorant of the presence of a predisposition to become alcoholic. As of this writing, there is no test to determine whether or not a person will become alcoholic. There is absolutely no way alcoholics in treatment centers today could have informed themselves concerning whether or not they would become alcoholic when they first drank. Along this line of thinking, several facts need to be kept in mind. One is the fact that most drinkers do not become alcoholics, in fact, most people do not drink excessively. The statistics used to show that ten percent of the drinkers drink half of all the alcohol that is consumed. This fact would imply less obligation for the potential alcoholic to inform himself of his predisposition to alcoholism if a tests were available. Another fact is that in our society, drinking is a normal adult activity. The vast majority of people drink at some point during their lives, unless they are prohibited to by their religion or some diagnosed medical disorder.
That the alcoholic is unavoidably ignorant of his disease seems also to be true because of the logical absurdity of the reverse (that he takes his first drink knowing he will become an alcoholic). In my experience with alcoholics in a variety of settings, I have yet to hear an alcoholic say, "A yes, I knew I was going to become an alcoholic, lose my wife, children, job and almost my life; end up in jail filled with shame and disgust and eventually end up in treatment."
Aristotle states an action is involuntary and morally excusable if it is done under irresistible compulsion. The alcoholic, in the midst of the disease, eventually is ruled by the compulsion to drink. Father Martin puts it eloquently in his film, Chalk Talk, when he states; " The alcoholic drinks the way he does because he cannot not drink that way. " (15) He goes on to say, when a person came to him aghast that the mother went to her daughter's graduation drunk, ;" of course she did, that's the problem!" That women's compulsion to drink was irresistible - no other explanation seems possible.
The alcoholic is morally excusable for actions during active alcoholism because of unavoidable ignorance. If he knew before the disease became evident that he would become an alcoholic, he could have chosen to do other than what he did. Once he did become aware of the problem, he was under irresistible compulsion to continue to drink. The only manner in which irresistible compulsion can be dealt with is through treatment and AA. While the alcoholic is morally excusable for actions, he is still physically responsible. Increased physical responsibility helps motivate the alcoholic to get into treatment.
Argument #3: Utilitarianism. This argument deals with the blameworthiness of the alcoholic. The proponents of the theory of utility are concerned with results - that action which brings the greatest good or the least amount of harm for the most amount of people is the right action. Actions are judged on their consequences; if the consequences are good, then the action is good. The Utilitarians believe that blaming is an action people take in order to change other's behavior.
.....blaming is a practice which is justified only by its results in changing behavior. We blame people in order that they will refrain from doing similar acts in the future, and we praise them in order to reinforce similar behavior in the future. When these devices do not have these effects, as often happens, we should refrain from using them. (16)
The Utilitarians make several distinctions when talking about blame. The separate the action from the agent, and also separate the action of blaming from the original action. The rightness or wrongness of both the original action, and the action of blaming, are judged by the utilitarian.
If Mr. A. is a social drinker and after a night of drinking he hits Mr. B's parked car, it would be right to blame Mr. A. for that wrong action (hitting the car) because it could very well result in Mr. A. changing his behavior (because Mr. A is a social drinker, he could stop drinking solely because of the consequences of his behavior while drinking). However, if Mr. C., who is an alcoholic, hit Mr Bs car while drunk, it would be wrong to blame Mr. C because blaming him could not result in changing his behavior. Thus, blaming the alcoholic is immoral in itself from a utilitarian point of view, particularly because blaming the alcoholic can have harmful consequences, namely causing increased anxiety in the alcoholic which causes an increase in drinking. The most frequent blamers of alcoholics are co-alcoholics. It appears co-alcoholics should not be held morally responsible for blaming alcoholics for their actions, because the co-alcoholics' act of blaming is a symptom of their issues related to being affected by the alcoholic's drinking. The co-alcoholic cannot not blame the alcoholic, until he or she understands the disease of alcoholism, and develops other skills beyond blaming for coping with the alcoholic. These skills can be developed through treatment and using the principles of Alanon.
The worker must be sensitive to the fact that blaming often does not involve words at all; one can have an attitude of blame. It is easy for an alcoholic client/patient to sense when a worker has an attitude of blame. (17) Newly detoxed alcoholics are often more aware than they have been in years. They are very sensitive to how others are presenting themselves. A cold handshake, an aloof or disgusted look, are very powerful messages to the alcoholic. The worker with an attitude of blame will be unable to connect with the alcoholic. This may account for the fact that professionals who are also recovering alcoholics are often accepted more quickly than non-recovering professionals by the alcoholic. The recovering professional is most instances will not have an attitude of blame towards the alcoholic and so can easily connect with him or her (although it must be said that is not always the case). However, any worker with an appropriate attitude can connect with the alcoholic. The attitude the worker must develop is one of not blaming, but at the same time holding the alcoholic physically responsible.
The alcoholic's actions are often wrong because of their harmful consequences, by a utilitarian standard. Thus, alcoholics must be held physically responsible for their actions. Society demands that whatever the case, members of society must be in some way responsible for their actions. At the same time, blaming the alcoholic for wrong actions is wrong in itself, as it has no good, and usually harmful, consequences.
Argument #4: Alcoholics Anonymous. The last, but most certainly not the least, argument for the moral/physical a dualism of responsibility in alcoholism in the teachings of AA. Members of AA greet new members with acceptance rather than blame or judgment. But along with this accepting attitude, the Twelve Steps suggest alcoholics need to take responsibility for their behavior. (18) Alcoholics need to admit and accept that their lives has become unmanageable and takes responsibility for the harm they have done to others by making amends.
Recovery from alcoholism through treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous sets the stage for righting the moral balance sheet. The wrong actions of the past are owned by the alcoholic and righted by direct amends to persons harmed (when not further harmful), and/or by service to others. In recovery, the alcoholic needs to take a " searching and fearless moral inventory ".(19)
I have had to shorten it, as it too large for SR pub.
Perspectives - Vol. 4, No. 2 - The Morality of Alcoholism - Page 1 of 2
Gary S. Stofle
This article is based upon ideas originally presented at the 1985 NASW Professional Symposium: "The People, Yes!" on November 9, 1985.
The morality of alcoholism is a topic seldom on the agenda of workshops concerning alcoholism, or dealt with as a topic by itself in the literature. And yet moral issues regarding alcoholism are often talked about among professionals and is a topic in many counseling sessions. Morality is a difficult subject to deal with in any context. Issues of right and wrong, shame and guilt are brought up in almost every group or individual counseling session. The powerlessness, helplessness and angry feelings the worker experiences doing this work are often related to basic moral issues. The newly detoxed alcoholic is flooded with affect and is supersensitive to how others present themselves. The workers understanding of moral issues and alcoholism is essential to effective helping. If the worker blames the alcoholic, or has an attitude of blame, the worker and alcoholic often dont connect and the work will be stuck.
Much confusion exists about the morality of alcoholism. Alcoholics are often confused when they enter treatment full of shame and remorse then are told they are not responsible for their alcoholism. Family members are confused when the alcoholic enters treatment " the bad guy " and somewhere in treatment becomes " the good guy ". Workers are confused when alcoholics bring feelings out in them unlike no other population. Philosophers are confused when they hear "disease concept" and then think what is being said is the alcoholic is not morally responsible.
THE PROBLEM
The problem is clear - there exits two very opposing moral views of alcoholism. The immoral view has a long, documented history and persists strongly in society to the present day. The immoralists view the alcoholic as not having morals. They also use words such as "sinful" or "moral weaklings" when describing alcoholics. (1) At the other extreme, amoralists divorce morality from alcoholism citing the disease concept as evidence. The amoralist tells a patient/client: "you're not a bad person trying to get good, you're a sick person trying to get well!" (2) Neither view is an accurate perception of reality. Workers and others holding either view are unable to effectively tune in to the alcoholic's struggles regarding moral issues.
Despite what many people observe, many alcoholics must endure a profound and constant internal struggle regarding morality. The morning after a drunken episode can be a horrific time for alcoholics - the feelings of guilt, shame and powerlessness can be overwhelming. Many alcoholics feel these feelings because they are moral beings and their actions from the previous evening do not correspond to their value system. Again, in the midst of guilt and self-loathing, they will make a heartfelt promise to not repeat the actions of the previous evening. However, they are doomed to act immorally until they begin recovery. The immoralists are unable or unwilling to tune into this moral struggle (the alcoholic should simply choose to not drink!). The amoralists are accepting and aware of the struggle, but fail to explain the process.
THE IMMORALISTS
The alcoholic has a long history of being viewed as morally inferior. Aristotle, while he did not write specifically using the work alcoholic, wrote that a person who drinks to excess is responsible for whatever happens. (3) He used an example of two blind men. One was born blind, the other became blind after a long period of drinking alcohol. Aristotle said the man born blind is in no way responsible for his blindness and should be helped and pitied by others. He said the drunkard should be condemned because he brought it on himself. The drunkards blindness is a logical and deserved consequence of his wrong choice of behavior. It could be safely said that this attitude towards the alcoholic still exists today.
Other philosophers, all of whom have helped to form our system of morals and values, share beliefs similar to Aristotle. Kant's views are the most explicit. He, and many other philosophers, view alcoholics as having a choice over whether or not they drink - the action of becoming drunk is a voluntary one, so the person who gets drunk can be held responsible on a moral level.
Society has ascribed to these views as evidenced by the fact that alcoholics have been jailed just for being alcoholics in the past. (4) At worst, alcoholics have been killed or left to die because of society's views and from a lack of knowledge concerning treatment of alcoholism as well. At best, alcoholics have been laughed at, scorned, pitied and/or run out of town. Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease (5) illustrates the current day immoralists who arent so much concerned with labeling alcoholics "sinful" as they are in denying the possibility of alcoholism as a disease.
A very real and potentially fatal consequence of holding an immoralist view of alcoholism concerns the difficulty of getting help for the alcoholic. The alcoholic may have been socialized in a home where alcoholism was viewed as a moral failing and the alcoholic viewed as a "sinner" or moral weakling. Being raised with such a set of beliefs will strongly inhibit that alcoholic from admitting their alcoholism and from seeking help. Family members will not seek help for themselves or the alcoholic, except in extreme cases, to avoid the shame and disgrace. This scenario has been played out many, many times over many years. It is particularly difficult for a family member to reconcile their view of alcoholism with the fact that their family member, whom they love and respect, could be an alcoholic and thus a moral weakling. Alcoholics with this view would logically hold onto their system of denial more strongly than an alcoholic who was raised to view alcoholism as a treatable disease. Although the alcoholic who believes in the immoral view towards alcoholism will be less likely to seek or be involved in treatment for alcoholism, he or she will seek medical attention for secondary physical problems. However, alcoholism cannot usually be arrested without being treated directly.
The newest form of the immoralists also can result in the alcoholic not seeking services as well because they often espouse the view of moderation to the person with the problem with alcohol. While there are many people who drink excessively and then moderate their drinking, this discussion revolves around those people who have been unsuccessful in moderating their drinking despite attempts to do so.
THE AMORALISTS
Two proponents of the amoralist view of alcoholism are James Milam and Katherine Ketcham. Milam and Ketchem are quoted below:
The alcoholic must also understand that he is not responsible for the things he said or did when he was drinking. The physical addiction controlled his behavior, and because he is powerless over the addiction, he cannot be held responsible for it. When the alcoholic looks back at his life as a drinking alcoholic, he should learn to say, "That's what alcoholism did to me", not "That's what I did." Saying the words "I am an alcoholic" should convey the same moral overtones as the words, "I am allergic to pollen". (6)
Milam and Ketcham are correct when they state that the alcoholic should not be held morally responsible for actions during active alcoholism. However, they and most authors in the field fail to give any justification for the lack of moral responsibility beyond the disease concept. It is felt that a blanket statement such as "The alcoholic... is not responsible for the things he said or did when he was drinking" is inappropriate. If the alcoholic is not physically responsible for actions while drinking, several questions immediately come to mind. Who is responsible for the bad checks the alcoholic wrote while on a spree? Who is responsible for repairing the next door neighbors' car he ran into while drunk? Who ought to apologize to his son for not going to the son's graduation as promised and instead goes to the bar? Why should the alcoholics feel guilty if they are not at least physically responsible? How can alcoholics be motivated towards recovery if they are not responsible? These are questions that the amoralists do not answer.
The problem with amoral point of view usually becomes evident on an individual basis during treatment. Often alcoholics enter treatment at least partially aware of their inappropriate behaviors during active alcoholism. As alcoholics are detoxed and progress in treatment, much of the time they become more aware of their inappropriate behaviors from the past, and are often filled with shame and remorse. At this point, alcoholics hear something like this from the worker: "you're not a bad person trying to get good, you're a sick person trying to get well!" or "it's a disease, it is not a moral issue!" Alcoholics understandably become confused. If I have not done "bad" things, why do I feel so guilty about the things I have done? How can what they are saying be true when I know I have done "bad" things while drinking? They may think the disease concept too convenient or just something made up to help him or her with guilt. To abruptly dismiss the moral issues of alcoholism can place additional pressures or stress on the alcoholic and does not provide enough information for alcoholics to be able to successfully resolve their guilt and shame.
Acceptance of the disease concept is placed in jeopardy by the amoralists. Immoralists tend to feel angry when the amoralists state the alcoholic is not responsible because of the disease. This anger probably prompted one person to write: "the disease concept gives reprieve to the odious alcohol sinner." The divorce of moral issues from alcoholism also reinforces the immoralists in their view of alcoholism. When a worker in a family service agency sees children emotionally scarred because of an alcoholic parent, they will say "there is something wrong or bad going on." When a physician has to wrestle with a drunk in an ER, they will say "there is something wrong here". When a family hears their daughter has been killed by a drunken driver, they know something is wrong. It is wrong for innocent lives to be taken. The reality is this rightness and wrongness (Morality) needs to be talked about in the context of alcoholism - to not do so is being unrealistic. If moral issues in the context of alcoholism are not talked about, the immoralists and amoralist will continue to exist in their absolutes.
Another side to the amoral view is the alcoholic who is actively drinking and telling friends and family "I can't help it, I've got a disease". This person is correct in that he has a disease, but like the above examples, he does not possess all of the appropriate information concerning morality and alcoholism. And the reality is that society will hold this person legally responsible, at the very least, for his actions.
The immoralists are right in the fact that alcoholics commit wrong or harmful acts while actively alcoholic. This piece of information can be verified by almost anyone with personal or professional experience with alcoholics. But the immoralists are misinformed in their belief that drinking by the alcoholic is voluntary (a matter of choice), or that drinking or not drinking is a question of lack of moral development or "willpower".
The amoralists are correct when they infer that the alcoholic is not morally responsible for actions in active alcoholism, but they fail to explain to colleagues and clients why this should be so, beyond stating it is a disease. But the amoralists are incorrect when they infer that the alcoholic is not physically responsible. All members of society, whatever their impairment, are held responsible to at least some degree of their action.
WHAT HOLDS THIS PROBLEM IN PLACE
The problem concerning the two opposing views of morality and alcoholism is held in place by several factors. The immoralist view, which states the alcoholic is morally deficient, is firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of many, and has been for centuries. Such a firmly entrenched view has been and will be very difficult to change. Social workers will readily attest to the difficulty in changing views developed over a very small part of a lifespan. The view that alcoholics are immoral is also held by some helping professionals. All the techniques and skills developed by professionals over the years had been inadequate to treat alcoholism (7) until the advent of Alcoholics Anonymous and the knowledge base and skills concerning alcoholism as a primary disease. And yet the disease concept is clearly not universally accepted by members of the helping professions.
Another factor that holds this problem in place concerns a common characteristic of many human beings - a characteristic that social workers are trained to overcome. That characteristic is that many of us have a tendency to think that everyone is on the same psychological wavelength as we are. (8) Another way to state this phenomenon is to say we believe that people are able to do the things that we are able to do. A person who doesn't have a problem with alcohol may drink too much on an occasion. That person wakes up, feels uncomfortable or embarrassed and makes a decision not to drink that much anymore and doesn't. He has a friend who is alcoholic (diagnosed or undiagnosed) and tells that friend to "just drink a couple, and you'll be OK". It worked for the first man, but didn't for the second, because the second man has a disease. The first man notices a big difference between the two and uses the following logic: A. I'm a good, moral man who stopped drinking when I saw it as a problem. B. Good, moral men can stop drinking when it's a problem. C. You must not be a good, moral man because you can't stop drinking after two like me.
The alcoholic drinks more than two because of an irresistible inner compulsion. It is very difficult for most people to understand compulsion unless it has been personally experienced. Compulsion doesn't make sense because it bypasses logic and rationality. However, when compulsion is understood, the unpredictable actions of the alcoholic begin to make more sense. When the worker understands compulsion, he or she is able to connect with the alcoholic.
A NEW PERSPECTIVE
Morality in the context of alcoholism can be viewed as a moral/physical dualism where alcoholics are not morally responsible for their behavior during the active alcoholism, but they are always physically responsible for their behavior. Each piece of the moral/physical dualism will be explained below.
That alcoholics are not morally responsible for their actions can be expressed in other ways: not blameworthy on a moral level; not morally culpable; or morally excusable. Each of these ideas will be discussed in more detail later in this article.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DUALISTIC CONCEPT
This article has four specific arguments for workers and others to adopt the dualistic concept or moral/physical responsibility in their work with the alcoholic. These are explained below:
Argument # 1: Biochemistry. "To behave morally is to have internalized control over behavior that inhibits harmful act and facilitates beneficent acts". (9) One of the first effects of drinking alcohol is disinhibition. Disinhibition is an effect noticed in all drinkers; it is not confined to alcoholics. As the blood alcohol level rises in the drinker, reason and judgment are progressively more affected until the drinker is physically unable to be rational or to use his or her judgment. The drinker at this point is unable to act morally.
Mention should be made at this point of two studies done to determine if there exist significant differences in Kohlberg's moral reasoning levels between alcoholics/addicts and socioeconomically matched controls. Both studies discovered there is no significant difference. (10) Also, both studies pointed to the problem being located in what Kohlberg called "ego controls"(11) rather than in the ability to reason morally at a socially acceptable level. It is these ego controls which are sedated by the drug alcohol. Rationality and judgment are what separates human beings from other animals. Indeed, systems of thought regarding morality are based upon the premise that the agent is rational and can use judgment (choose between alternatives). It is easy to understand why Kant states: "....when a man is drunk, he is simply like a beast, not to be treated as a human being..." (12) The lack of ability to be moral (to be reasonable, to use judgment and make a right choice of action) is easily observable in an intoxicated person. Kant and other philosophers (and mankind in general) have made this observation. Kant's anger seems to be caused by his belief that the drunkard chooses to place himself in such a state. However, research is showing that the alcoholic does not choose to drink; in fact be definition, the alcoholic is powerless over drinking alcohol. In treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, alcoholics learn skills for dealing with their powerlessness over alcohol and so can arrest the disease. The concept of choice in alcoholism will be further examined under the next argument.
When drunk, a person is experiencing a drug induced organic brain syndrome, which is reversible after the alcohol has been metabolized, and is similar in its effects on behavior to Organic Brain Syndrome (OBS). As a society, we do not hold persons with OBS morally responsible for their behavior. But because of society's lack of understanding of the biochemistry of alcohol on the CNS and because of their long held belief that the alcoholic chooses to put himself in such a state, society holds the alcoholic morally responsible for his actions.
The reader at this point may say, "Okay, I know enough to realize that when a person drinks enough they are physically unable to act morally. But I've seen plenty of social drinkers who get drunk and don't beat up their kids or other people, or they aren't obnoxious like most of the alcoholics I've run into. Why the difference?" This point is well taken. A specific reason exits for the difference - the amount of emotional pain in the drinker. As with all drugs, set and setting affects how alcohol affects the drinker. While the social drinker may be in emotional pain before drinking, that is not usually the case by definition. The social drinker drinks to be "social", to have a good time with others. The social drinker does not drink to relieve emotional pain. However, the alcoholic almost always is in emotional pain. The alcoholic has a realization of previous inappropriate behaviors while drinking (and the guilt associated with that). The broken promises and dreams in the alcoholic's life is a source of ongoing emotional pain. The huge gulf between the ideal self and the actual self in the alcoholic is a source of tremendous emotional pain. If one assumes the inescapable link between pain and anger, and one tunes into the sources of emotional pain cited above (to say nothing of the shame/stigma and the physical pain brought on by the medical consequences of alcoholism), it is easy to understand why the alcoholic acts out in an angry manner. The social drinker does not have this pain, so does not act out in the same manner.
Society must hold the alcoholic physically responsible for his or her behavior, much in the same way it holds the criminally insane responsible for their actions (not to imply that alcoholics are criminally insane). When a criminally insane person (one who is unable to distinguish right from wrong) performs an act which society considers harmful, that person is isolated from society (to protect society and the person) and treated until such a time when professionals can make a judgment that this person will be able to conform to the rules of society.
Argument #2. Aristotle clearly delineates when a person is not morally responsible for his or her actions.(13) He uses two concepts to judge whether or not a person should be held morally responsible for an action. Both concepts are applied to the moral/physical dualism of responsibility. The reader should keep in mind these two concepts are not use by Aristotle in regards to alcoholism; Aristotle holds the drunkard morally responsible for actions because he considers the act of drinking to drunkenness as voluntary.
Aristotle describes two basic types of actions - voluntary and involuntary. He further states:
...it is only voluntary actions for which praise and blame are given; those that are involuntary are condoned, and sometimes even pitied.... It is generally held that actions are involuntary when done a) under compulsion or b) through ignorance.(14)
Aristotle further divides ignorance into avoidable and unavoidable ignorance. The agent is morally responsible if he is avoidably ignorant; he is morally excusable if he is unavoidably ignorant. An example of avoidable ignorance is a person who shoots another with a gun saying "I did not know the gun was loaded". He should have avoided ignorance by taking the time to check the gun. He would be held morally responsible. An example of unavoidable ignorance would be if a person invites another for a ride in the car and during the drive, the car is hit by another car. The driver was unavoidably ignorant of the fact that they were going to be involved in an accident. There is no way the driver could have informed himself about the accident before he asked his friends along. He is unavoidably ignorant and thus morally excusable.
The alcoholic is unavoidably ignorant of the presence of a predisposition to become alcoholic. As of this writing, there is no test to determine whether or not a person will become alcoholic. There is absolutely no way alcoholics in treatment centers today could have informed themselves concerning whether or not they would become alcoholic when they first drank. Along this line of thinking, several facts need to be kept in mind. One is the fact that most drinkers do not become alcoholics, in fact, most people do not drink excessively. The statistics used to show that ten percent of the drinkers drink half of all the alcohol that is consumed. This fact would imply less obligation for the potential alcoholic to inform himself of his predisposition to alcoholism if a tests were available. Another fact is that in our society, drinking is a normal adult activity. The vast majority of people drink at some point during their lives, unless they are prohibited to by their religion or some diagnosed medical disorder.
That the alcoholic is unavoidably ignorant of his disease seems also to be true because of the logical absurdity of the reverse (that he takes his first drink knowing he will become an alcoholic). In my experience with alcoholics in a variety of settings, I have yet to hear an alcoholic say, "A yes, I knew I was going to become an alcoholic, lose my wife, children, job and almost my life; end up in jail filled with shame and disgust and eventually end up in treatment."
Aristotle states an action is involuntary and morally excusable if it is done under irresistible compulsion. The alcoholic, in the midst of the disease, eventually is ruled by the compulsion to drink. Father Martin puts it eloquently in his film, Chalk Talk, when he states; " The alcoholic drinks the way he does because he cannot not drink that way. " (15) He goes on to say, when a person came to him aghast that the mother went to her daughter's graduation drunk, ;" of course she did, that's the problem!" That women's compulsion to drink was irresistible - no other explanation seems possible.
The alcoholic is morally excusable for actions during active alcoholism because of unavoidable ignorance. If he knew before the disease became evident that he would become an alcoholic, he could have chosen to do other than what he did. Once he did become aware of the problem, he was under irresistible compulsion to continue to drink. The only manner in which irresistible compulsion can be dealt with is through treatment and AA. While the alcoholic is morally excusable for actions, he is still physically responsible. Increased physical responsibility helps motivate the alcoholic to get into treatment.
Argument #3: Utilitarianism. This argument deals with the blameworthiness of the alcoholic. The proponents of the theory of utility are concerned with results - that action which brings the greatest good or the least amount of harm for the most amount of people is the right action. Actions are judged on their consequences; if the consequences are good, then the action is good. The Utilitarians believe that blaming is an action people take in order to change other's behavior.
.....blaming is a practice which is justified only by its results in changing behavior. We blame people in order that they will refrain from doing similar acts in the future, and we praise them in order to reinforce similar behavior in the future. When these devices do not have these effects, as often happens, we should refrain from using them. (16)
The Utilitarians make several distinctions when talking about blame. The separate the action from the agent, and also separate the action of blaming from the original action. The rightness or wrongness of both the original action, and the action of blaming, are judged by the utilitarian.
If Mr. A. is a social drinker and after a night of drinking he hits Mr. B's parked car, it would be right to blame Mr. A. for that wrong action (hitting the car) because it could very well result in Mr. A. changing his behavior (because Mr. A is a social drinker, he could stop drinking solely because of the consequences of his behavior while drinking). However, if Mr. C., who is an alcoholic, hit Mr Bs car while drunk, it would be wrong to blame Mr. C because blaming him could not result in changing his behavior. Thus, blaming the alcoholic is immoral in itself from a utilitarian point of view, particularly because blaming the alcoholic can have harmful consequences, namely causing increased anxiety in the alcoholic which causes an increase in drinking. The most frequent blamers of alcoholics are co-alcoholics. It appears co-alcoholics should not be held morally responsible for blaming alcoholics for their actions, because the co-alcoholics' act of blaming is a symptom of their issues related to being affected by the alcoholic's drinking. The co-alcoholic cannot not blame the alcoholic, until he or she understands the disease of alcoholism, and develops other skills beyond blaming for coping with the alcoholic. These skills can be developed through treatment and using the principles of Alanon.
The worker must be sensitive to the fact that blaming often does not involve words at all; one can have an attitude of blame. It is easy for an alcoholic client/patient to sense when a worker has an attitude of blame. (17) Newly detoxed alcoholics are often more aware than they have been in years. They are very sensitive to how others are presenting themselves. A cold handshake, an aloof or disgusted look, are very powerful messages to the alcoholic. The worker with an attitude of blame will be unable to connect with the alcoholic. This may account for the fact that professionals who are also recovering alcoholics are often accepted more quickly than non-recovering professionals by the alcoholic. The recovering professional is most instances will not have an attitude of blame towards the alcoholic and so can easily connect with him or her (although it must be said that is not always the case). However, any worker with an appropriate attitude can connect with the alcoholic. The attitude the worker must develop is one of not blaming, but at the same time holding the alcoholic physically responsible.
The alcoholic's actions are often wrong because of their harmful consequences, by a utilitarian standard. Thus, alcoholics must be held physically responsible for their actions. Society demands that whatever the case, members of society must be in some way responsible for their actions. At the same time, blaming the alcoholic for wrong actions is wrong in itself, as it has no good, and usually harmful, consequences.
Argument #4: Alcoholics Anonymous. The last, but most certainly not the least, argument for the moral/physical a dualism of responsibility in alcoholism in the teachings of AA. Members of AA greet new members with acceptance rather than blame or judgment. But along with this accepting attitude, the Twelve Steps suggest alcoholics need to take responsibility for their behavior. (18) Alcoholics need to admit and accept that their lives has become unmanageable and takes responsibility for the harm they have done to others by making amends.
Recovery from alcoholism through treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous sets the stage for righting the moral balance sheet. The wrong actions of the past are owned by the alcoholic and righted by direct amends to persons harmed (when not further harmful), and/or by service to others. In recovery, the alcoholic needs to take a " searching and fearless moral inventory ".(19)
I have had to shorten it, as it too large for SR pub.
Don't get undies in a bunch
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Shore MA
Posts: 7,120
Originally Posted by CarolD
Well.... as I believe in God
I believe in Satan.
That figures for me.
Blessings...
I believe in Satan.
That figures for me.
Blessings...
learning
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I need to be
Posts: 310
This study uses Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. These “theories” have been highly criticized. The major criticisms of them are:
1. They are culturally biased.
2. They are sex-biased
3. There is no empirical evidence to support them.
Personally I think Kohlberg’s theories are crap.
My first criticism of that article is that it is impossible to pick a control group of alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
Secondly, while I agree that drinking too much is not always a moral issue, I don’t think that moral development or reasoning can be measured with any kind of accuracy.
1. They are culturally biased.
2. They are sex-biased
3. There is no empirical evidence to support them.
Personally I think Kohlberg’s theories are crap.
My first criticism of that article is that it is impossible to pick a control group of alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
Secondly, while I agree that drinking too much is not always a moral issue, I don’t think that moral development or reasoning can be measured with any kind of accuracy.
learning
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I need to be
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Five
Bartender:
Interesting. I guess I still look at some studies and think there must be some truth in it. Need to sharpen...
Interesting. I guess I still look at some studies and think there must be some truth in it. Need to sharpen...
Hey now Mill….
If you are going to tell folks that SMaRT Recovery is part of what you do, we are really going to have to erase that “need” word from your vocabulary
.In my best interest to, wise to choose to…you get the picture.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Some things I see in books. Some things life teaches me too.
In Sri Lanka I met a 27 yr old who liked to practice his English, coincidently he was a good friend of a good friend of mine. He had 2 terms (yes terms - like semesters only shorter!) at school in his entire life but he spoke 7 languages, all of which he learned without reading or writing. His forehead carried a scar from his hair being set on fire, his right hand had little use left after the tendons in his wrist being slashed - he also DRANK, arrack supplied by his brother in return for him helping with boat trips.
Our mutual friend told me his father had beaten him badly before he died from arrack, at 14 Gistopa took over feeding his mother and 2 younger sisters. He fished when the other fishermen thought the sea was too rough - he had more mouths to feed, his brother at that time had left him to it.
Later I heard from lots of people Gistopa was gentle but his brother was violent. Apart from the few years his brother did a bunk he had been beaten most days of his life. It was his brother that slashed his wrist, stabbed him, and set his head on fire with kerosine - but Gistopa never hit. He said he didn't hit because he didn't like it.
Gistopa used to save puppies!! Lots of puppies, puppies people didn't want, puppies people had found in rubbish, puppies tourists brought to him. He would hold them up ad sing songs to them in Sinhala. Some of them looked so young I thought they would die for sure on a diet of rice and scraps - but certainly the ones I saw didn't.
I reckon he'd done enough for 1 human being even if he never did one more useful thing. He managed to get his sisters to adulthood, he never hit, he saved puppies.
He's one person I think of when I hear A..... are blah blah blah. Oh yeah?
Sorry it's so small - I over shrank it!!
His house was lost in the tsunami - he, and survived but I don't know where he is now.
In Sri Lanka I met a 27 yr old who liked to practice his English, coincidently he was a good friend of a good friend of mine. He had 2 terms (yes terms - like semesters only shorter!) at school in his entire life but he spoke 7 languages, all of which he learned without reading or writing. His forehead carried a scar from his hair being set on fire, his right hand had little use left after the tendons in his wrist being slashed - he also DRANK, arrack supplied by his brother in return for him helping with boat trips.
Our mutual friend told me his father had beaten him badly before he died from arrack, at 14 Gistopa took over feeding his mother and 2 younger sisters. He fished when the other fishermen thought the sea was too rough - he had more mouths to feed, his brother at that time had left him to it.
Later I heard from lots of people Gistopa was gentle but his brother was violent. Apart from the few years his brother did a bunk he had been beaten most days of his life. It was his brother that slashed his wrist, stabbed him, and set his head on fire with kerosine - but Gistopa never hit. He said he didn't hit because he didn't like it.
Gistopa used to save puppies!! Lots of puppies, puppies people didn't want, puppies people had found in rubbish, puppies tourists brought to him. He would hold them up ad sing songs to them in Sinhala. Some of them looked so young I thought they would die for sure on a diet of rice and scraps - but certainly the ones I saw didn't.
I reckon he'd done enough for 1 human being even if he never did one more useful thing. He managed to get his sisters to adulthood, he never hit, he saved puppies.
He's one person I think of when I hear A..... are blah blah blah. Oh yeah?
Sorry it's so small - I over shrank it!!
His house was lost in the tsunami - he, and survived but I don't know where he is now.
body ~ mind ~ spirit
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 582
I like life experience too equus! Touching story, thank you. Sometimes people who write theory have not lived very much outside of the books, how can they really know stuff?
Life, morals, culture and what shapes a person are complicated, every time people try to box it in and say this is exactly the right solution they leave out randomness, chance and chaos. These are very real things and we do not understand a lot of stuff yet.
Alcoholics are just people like everyone else, we have done things that we regret and blinkered our vision, limiting our growth through life. My thoughts all got twisted to pave the way to doing stuff to myself all over again, but my basic morals were always there, I just ignored them. Other people, other than alcoholics, do that too, so that has just made me human not a deviant.
Interesting thread, is it a commentary of how we percieve ourselves in society and our standing within the group? That we are interested in this stuff shows our depth of sensitivity and understanding. The worst alcoholic in my family (if there is a worst!) was the most sensitive and moral, that is why it hurt him so much to drink, he knew in his very core about the wrongs of it but couldn't help doing wrong again and again.
food for thought,
love brigid
Life, morals, culture and what shapes a person are complicated, every time people try to box it in and say this is exactly the right solution they leave out randomness, chance and chaos. These are very real things and we do not understand a lot of stuff yet.
Alcoholics are just people like everyone else, we have done things that we regret and blinkered our vision, limiting our growth through life. My thoughts all got twisted to pave the way to doing stuff to myself all over again, but my basic morals were always there, I just ignored them. Other people, other than alcoholics, do that too, so that has just made me human not a deviant.
Interesting thread, is it a commentary of how we percieve ourselves in society and our standing within the group? That we are interested in this stuff shows our depth of sensitivity and understanding. The worst alcoholic in my family (if there is a worst!) was the most sensitive and moral, that is why it hurt him so much to drink, he knew in his very core about the wrongs of it but couldn't help doing wrong again and again.
food for thought,
love brigid
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by brigid
I like life experience too equus! Touching story, thank you. Sometimes people who write theory have not lived very much outside of the books, how can they really know stuff?
Life, morals, culture and what shapes a person are complicated, every time people try to box it in and say this is exactly the right solution they leave out randomness, chance and chaos. These are very real things and we do not understand a lot of stuff yet.
Alcoholics are just people like everyone else, we have done things that we regret and blinkered our vision, limiting our growth through life. My thoughts all got twisted to pave the way to doing stuff to myself all over again, but my basic morals were always there, I just ignored them. Other people, other than alcoholics, do that too, so that has just made me human not a deviant.
Interesting thread, is it a commentary of how we percieve ourselves in society and our standing within the group? That we are interested in this stuff shows our depth of sensitivity and understanding. The worst alcoholic in my family (if there is a worst!) was the most sensitive and moral, that is why it hurt him so much to drink, he knew in his very core about the wrongs of it but couldn't help doing wrong again and again.
food for thought,
love brigid
Life, morals, culture and what shapes a person are complicated, every time people try to box it in and say this is exactly the right solution they leave out randomness, chance and chaos. These are very real things and we do not understand a lot of stuff yet.
Alcoholics are just people like everyone else, we have done things that we regret and blinkered our vision, limiting our growth through life. My thoughts all got twisted to pave the way to doing stuff to myself all over again, but my basic morals were always there, I just ignored them. Other people, other than alcoholics, do that too, so that has just made me human not a deviant.
Interesting thread, is it a commentary of how we percieve ourselves in society and our standing within the group? That we are interested in this stuff shows our depth of sensitivity and understanding. The worst alcoholic in my family (if there is a worst!) was the most sensitive and moral, that is why it hurt him so much to drink, he knew in his very core about the wrongs of it but couldn't help doing wrong again and again.
food for thought,
love brigid
Thanks, really. Five.
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 3,410
Five
"Reasoning" - have you read any of the studies that show that alcohol affects the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the area responsible for reasoning and higher cognitive function? Long term use can damage this area permanently.
"Reasoning" - have you read any of the studies that show that alcohol affects the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the area responsible for reasoning and higher cognitive function? Long term use can damage this area permanently.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by minnie
Five
"Reasoning" - have you read any of the studies that show that alcohol affects the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the area responsible for reasoning and higher cognitive function? Long term use can damage this area permanently.
"Reasoning" - have you read any of the studies that show that alcohol affects the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the area responsible for reasoning and higher cognitive function? Long term use can damage this area permanently.
I am also not a huge fan of "brain physics", prefering a pschological understanding of my problem. It puts it in the realm of the human, the possible. Its like those who blame depression entirely on seretonin. Its best to see a problem from many views, in my humble opinion.
I guess the further down the "scale", the worse it gets. I will look out for that research though Min.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
There will certainly always be some physical explainations when looking at the brain - even purely physical in my opinion. I don't see how that NOT being the case would be possible. The brain is a physical organ and I can see no reason why it should be any more immune to physical ailment than any other organ.
That said it doesn't mean 'nurture' and 'self' don't have a part to play, both can and do effect the development of the brain, and through life effect changes in the brain. Brain injured patients loose function which has to be relearned (where possible) within undamaged areas of the brain - the brain has incredible plasticity.
Seretonin is an interesting subject because some understanding of it has been around for a while. What's known is that changing the level of seretonin effects mood, but also mood can effect the level of seretonin. I believe there is a connection between long term alcohol abuse and the seretonin system being damaged - which would effect mood. Chemically changing that can alliviate symptoms which in turn can offer the boost needed to deal with related psychological issues. If one is damaged the other becomes effected, if one is helped the other is effected. What isn't known (as far as I'm aware) is the EXACT nature of the relationship, whether chemical, or life changes lead the relationship, or if that relationship remains the same across individuals.
I try to avoid choosing between one camp or another when it comes to deciding what 'physical' elements are involved in psychology. My heart felt belief is that both will always be involved to varying extents BUT BOTH will likely have influence over recovery from inbalance.
It's a pretty science, exquisite in detail and complexity - it's also a toddler of a science, just about ready for it's first days at school compared to astronomy or physics. One thing I think will happen in the next couple of decades is our ability to 'watch' the human brain working will improve beyond what we can concieve of and that will do for psychology what xray, ultra sound, endoscopes and MMRI did for biology! I think there will be a few red faces.
That said it doesn't mean 'nurture' and 'self' don't have a part to play, both can and do effect the development of the brain, and through life effect changes in the brain. Brain injured patients loose function which has to be relearned (where possible) within undamaged areas of the brain - the brain has incredible plasticity.
Seretonin is an interesting subject because some understanding of it has been around for a while. What's known is that changing the level of seretonin effects mood, but also mood can effect the level of seretonin. I believe there is a connection between long term alcohol abuse and the seretonin system being damaged - which would effect mood. Chemically changing that can alliviate symptoms which in turn can offer the boost needed to deal with related psychological issues. If one is damaged the other becomes effected, if one is helped the other is effected. What isn't known (as far as I'm aware) is the EXACT nature of the relationship, whether chemical, or life changes lead the relationship, or if that relationship remains the same across individuals.
I try to avoid choosing between one camp or another when it comes to deciding what 'physical' elements are involved in psychology. My heart felt belief is that both will always be involved to varying extents BUT BOTH will likely have influence over recovery from inbalance.
It's a pretty science, exquisite in detail and complexity - it's also a toddler of a science, just about ready for it's first days at school compared to astronomy or physics. One thing I think will happen in the next couple of decades is our ability to 'watch' the human brain working will improve beyond what we can concieve of and that will do for psychology what xray, ultra sound, endoscopes and MMRI did for biology! I think there will be a few red faces.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,229
Nice post Eq. I agree.
I think my experience with a cognitive model of OCD has led me to my bias. It was amazing, the way my symptoms (of a nasty, real nasty disorder) just started to vanish with a course in CBT. I couldnt believe it. However, on the other side where a group of brain blokes showing inflamed frontol lobes and "bad wiring" which just made my symptoms worse.
On the subject of seretonin: I reckon I took at least 1000 exstacy tablets over the course of about four years. Frightning.
Okay though now, today.
I think my experience with a cognitive model of OCD has led me to my bias. It was amazing, the way my symptoms (of a nasty, real nasty disorder) just started to vanish with a course in CBT. I couldnt believe it. However, on the other side where a group of brain blokes showing inflamed frontol lobes and "bad wiring" which just made my symptoms worse.
On the subject of seretonin: I reckon I took at least 1000 exstacy tablets over the course of about four years. Frightning.
Okay though now, today.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
