What Degree Of Addiction Can Be Considered A Disease/Medical Condition, Excusable For Misconduct?

Outline

Introduction

Key question: What degree of addiction can be considered a disease/medical condition, excusable for misconduct?

Author's position: Addiction is not a clear cut medical condition and adopting the disease model of addiction has serious ramifications for American society.

Macro level appraisal of author's argument

Micro level appraisal of author's argument

* Fallacious reasoning and claims

* Usage of concepts and lack of definition

* Unacceptability and insufficiency of claims

Conclusion

Passage Analysis

In the passage selection entitled "Ain't Misbehavin" the subject of addiction being classified as a disease is addressed. The author, Stanley Peele, suggests that a problem exists due to the fact that addiction is being classified as a medical condition, and this he believes would have ramifications for American society. In the passage the author takes the position against addiction being termed a disease.

In light of the problem presented and the position taken, I will analyze the passage. I will demonstrate that the author's position is not justified by critically evaluating logical fallacies, narrow usage of concepts and lack of definition, unacceptability and insufficiency of claims. A macro level appraisal of the passage will also be provided.

Peele is not successful in defending his thesis as he does not substantiate enough to establish a stronghold for his thesis. His thesis is affected by several shortcomings which become evident to the reader. The argument may be convertible into deductive form with some changes. But an attempt to do so would give us an invalid argument, which is unsound as premises cannot be accepted as true. My rejection of the argument is not unconditional; the author fails to acknowledge varying degrees of the main concepts. The author's usage of concepts is absolute and is not flexible to account for degrees of addiction which may be qualified as diseases and hence excusable. Neither is there any thought given to degrees of misconduct which may be excusable citing a medical condition. This makes the argument incomplete which ignores several aspects of the key question.

At the micro level analysis of the passage we can find claims with logical fallacies which weaken the argument. The first claim in the passage is supported by an Appeal to authority to establish that addiction has acquired a medical status in society. The author goes on in the passage to state that the disease model of addiction will lead to anything being excusable. The claim is a hasty generalization which draws a conclusion about all addictions being excusable by law, by using the word anything. The main conclusion along with the intermediate conclusions seeks to establish how - if addiction is a disease, people are left unpunished for misconduct, and if more misconduct is dismissed as addiction it will lead to chaos. It follows the pattern if A then B, B then C, hence A then C, which shows us a slippery slope fallacy in the argument. The author can also be said to be special pleading as he does not look