The problem of fitting blame in addiction

Bibliographic Data

ID21702895
AuthorsFederico Burdman (0000-0002-8506-9271, Alberto Hurtado University, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume28
Issue3
Pages377-396
Publication date2025-09-02
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophical Explorations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1386-9795 • E-ISSN: 1741-5918
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13869795.2025.2578002
OpenAlexW4415603581
LanguageEN
References cited71

If an agent’s moral blameworthiness is mitigated by her addiction, fitting blaming responses by affected parties should register this. What might be the proper way of doing so? I refer to this as the problem of fitting blame in addiction. The view I put forward rests on a distinction between desert-presupposing and non-desert-presupposing forms of blame. Retributive blame is the paradigm of the former, presupposing that target agents deserve to suffer harm on account of their behavior. This presupposition, I argue, is typically incorrect when an agent's actions result from a significant impairment of behavioral control, as is often the case in severe addiction. In contrast, non-desert-presupposing forms of blame toward people with addiction can be fitting, regardless of considerations about their instrumental value. The argument for this claim is based on the notion of scaffolding blame. Scaffolding forms of blame presuppose that target agents have the capacity to recognize their wrongdoing, care about harm done, engage in a productive moral conversation, and have some potential to act differently in the future. These presuppositions, I argue, are typically correct in cases of severe addiction

Addiction · Blame · Harm · Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications · Smoking Behavior and Cessation · Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Tools

Open DOI