Federico Burdman

'What addiction is, is very complicated', writes Owen Flanagan in the final chapter of his important new book, What is it like to be an addict? (p. 237). In many ways, the phrase condenses the outlook, style, and intellectual attitude that Flanagan brings to the various debates concerning substance addiction addressed in the book. At the core of Flanagan's Integrative theory is a picture of addiction as a fundamentally heterogeneous, multifarious, plural set of phenomena, not amenable to any single type of causal explanation. This picture is carefully outlined in Flanagan's characteristic writing style, using plain, straightforward language. And it is motivated by a concern for staying true to the (various kinds of) relevant facts rather than arguing for the superiority of any local, partial perspective on the ample set of issues being discussed.

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 (McGeer, 2013, 2019). 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.

Krieger (2025) clearly identifies what is arguably the central conundrum for theories of addiction: Addictive behavior appears to be in some sense compelled, yet often appears to be the result of choice. How can behavior be both under an agent’s control and not? Krieger’s elegant solution is to introduce a distinction between two senses of ability, claiming that people with addiction often lack the first-order ability to abstain, but at the same time often retain the second-order ability to do so. While there is much I agree with in this view—including the emphasis it places on environmental conditions and the role of social support, as well as the overarching thought that theories of addiction have much to gain from a serious engagement with the Philosophy of Action—, I argue that the distinction between first- and second-order ability offers a solution at the cost of introducing new difficulties. Moreover, I suggest that an alternative approach that frames the impairment of behavioral control as a matter of degree is better poised to illuminate the seemingly paradoxical nature of behavioral control in addiction.

La filosofía de la psiquiatría ha experimentado en los últimos años un crecimiento notable como ámbito de discusión, ganando notoriedad y un lugar propio como espacio de trabajo de la filosofía contemporánea. Bajo el rótulo “filosofía de la psiquiatría” se hace referencia corrientemente a un conjunto de problemas diversos, abordados mediante un conjunto heterogéneo de aproximaciones teóricas y metodológicas. Los problemas que tradicionalmente han dado forma a este campo giran en torno a preguntas conceptuales fundamentales que atañen al concepto mismo de enfermedad o trastorno mental (¿qué es la enfermedad mental?, ¿son éstas enfermedades del cerebro?, ¿se trata de clases naturales, normativas, o una combinación de ambas?, entre otras), junto a problemas que conciernen también de modo general al conjunto de la psiquiatría como práctica médica (¿cuál es la relación entre la psiquiatría y la medicina somática?, ¿qué relaciones epistémicas y normativas estructuran la relación entre terapeutas y pacientes?, entre otras) o a sus instrumentos teóricos (p. ej., ¿qué criterios son apropiados para la construcción de clasificaciones de condiciones psiquiátricas?). De modo más reciente, una cantidad significativa de trabajo filosófico se ha abocado a iluminar problemas conceptuales acerca de etiquetas diagnósticas específicas. La filosofía ha tomado un papel mucho más activo en discusiones acerca del modo en que se definen diferentes categorías nosológicas, al igual que acerca de asuntos conceptuales y metodológicos específicos que tienen un papel importante en el intento de explicar diversas condiciones particulares.

In this paper, I look into the debate about the status of addiction as a disease. Although addiction is widely regarded as a disease, several authors have put forward reasons for agnosticism or skepticism about the appropriateness of the disease label. Any attempt to address this issue directly is complicated by its relationship to several other contentious issues, both on the side of theories of addiction and on the side of theories of disease. My primary aim in this paper is to identify the major points of contention. My secondary aim is to offer a limited defense of the disease view. The crux of the debate is whether addiction is aptly pictured as the result of psychological dysfunction. The main hurdle for the psychological dysfunction claim is that we currently lack a relatively unified account of the behavioral trait that most strongly suggests dysfunctional processes: the loss of expectable ability to control behavior. I argue that there is a sense in which the dysfunction claim may be warranted even in the absence of a unified causal account. However, this requires assumptions that are to some extent controversial, most notably, the impaired control view of addiction and the acceptability of dysfunction-talk based on personal-level behavioral traits.

It is often assumed that, except perhaps in a few rare cases, people with addiction can be aptly held responsible for having acquired the condition. In this chapter, I consider the argument that supports this view and draw attention to a number of challenges that can be raised against it. Assuming that early decisions to use drugs were made in possession of normal-range psychological capacities, I consider the key question of whether drug users who later became addicted should have known that addiction was a likely outcome of their decisions to use drugs in a way that makes them blameworthy for their lack of foresight. I focus on three different points of contention surrounding this claim: how likely the outcome to be predicted was, how tolerable risk should be weighed against the expected value of decisions to use, and how reliable the relevant predictive abilities of the average person are. Once we consider in some detail what would have to be true in order for someone to be aptly held responsible for becoming addicted, the prospects for making a convincing case to that effect look, I argue, somewhat more uncertain than they might at first appear.

Can addiction be credibly invoked as an excuse for moral harms secondary to particular decisions to use drugs? This question raises two distinct sets of issues. First, there is the question of whether addiction is the sort of consideration that could, given suitable assumptions about the details of the case, excuse or mitigate moral blameworthiness. Most discussions of addiction and moral responsibility have focused on this question, and many have argued that addiction excuses. Here I articulate what I take to be the best argument for this view, based on the substantial difficulty that people with severe addiction experience in controlling drug-related behavior. This, I argue, may in some cases be sufficient to ground a mitigating excuse, given the way in which addiction undermines agents’ responsiveness to relevant moral reasons to do otherwise. Much less attention has been devoted to a second set of issues that critically affect the possibility of applying this mitigating excuse in particular cases, derived from the ambivalent nature of agential control in addiction. In order to find a fitting response to moral harm, the person with the right standing to blame must make a judgment about the extent to which the agent possessed certain morally relevant capacities at the time of the act. In practice, this will often prove tremendously difficult to assess. The ethical challenge for the person with the right standing to blame is fundamentally one of making a judgment about matters that seem underdetermined by the available evidence.

According to Marshall et al. (2024), some of the patients who refuse to stay in observation after being resuscitated following an opioid overdose are likely not making an autonomous choice. While I do not intend to dispute this claim, it merits discussion what is the concept of autonomy at play in making this assessment. I contend that the concept at work is more substantive than Marshall et al. acknowledge—and more substantive, too, than the form of autonomy usually thought to underpin the moral justification of the requirement of informed consent.

This paper argues that the crucial feature of the drug-related desires experienced by addicted agents is not that they ‘push’ the agent with a force she cannot oppose, but that they are not easily undermined by things that normally have the ability to undermine desires —in other words, that they are extraordinarily recalcitrant. As a result, the disposition to experience these desires is very persistent over the long-term, manifesting itself in particular episodes of wanting to use drugs that recur with great frequency. Both the persistence and the recurrence of these desires, it is argued, contribute to a diminished ability to respond to relevant reasons that speak against drug use.

A restrictive view of self-control identifies exercises of self-control with synchronic intrapsychic processes, and pictures diachronic and externally-scaffolded strategies not as proper instances of self-control, but as clever ways of avoiding the need to exercise that ability. In turn, defenders of an inclusive view of self-control typically argue that we should construe self-control as more than effortful inhibition, and that, on grounds of functional equivalence, all these diverse strategies might be properly described as instances of self-control. In this paper, I take a fresh look at this debate by focusing on cases of addiction. I argue that addicted agents face a paradigmatic sort of self-control challenge, which makes addiction an important test case for theories of self-control. And I discuss evidence that highlights both the unreliability of synchronic intrapsychic strategies and the crucial role that is played by diachronic and externally-scaffolded strategies in successful attempts at achieving abstinence by addicted individuals. Abstaining addicts are a paradigmatic case of agents who successfully exercise self-control, and they mostly do so by relying on diachronic and externally-scaffolded strategies. This, I argue, lends further support to an inclusive view of self-control.

People display recognizably characteristic behavioral patterns across time and situations, with a given degree of regularity. These patterns may justify the attribution of personality traits. It is arguably the commonsense view that the proper explanation of these behavioral regularities is given by intrinsic properties of the agent’s psychology. In this paper, I argue for an externalistic view of the causal basis of personality-characteristic behaviors. According to the externalistic view, the relevant behavioral regularities are better understood as the result of a systematic interaction between features internal to the agent and environmental-situational factors. Moreover, if the premise is granted that people are typically able to exercise a certain degree of control over the environmental-situational conditions they find themselves in, the resulting picture is of active sort of externalism, as people may at times engage in selection and manipulation of environmental-situational conditions as a way of managing their own behavioral tendencies.

The question I address in this paper is what is it exactly for desires to possess a certain strength. And my aim is twofold. First, I argue for a pluralistic account of desire strength. On this view, there are several dimensions along which desires possess greater or lesser strength, and none of them is intrinsically privileged. My second aim is to highlight some time-based properties of desires, recurrence and persistence. Both desires’ degree of persistence across time and their rate of episodic recurrence are, I argue, further dimensions of desire strength.

Las soluciones a la paradoja de la ficción propuestas por Kendall Walton y Gregory Currie, a pesar de diferir en puntos de detalle importantes, suponen dos movimientos conceptuales comunes para entender la situación de quien está inmerso en una obra de ficción, a través del recurso a la noción de “cuasi-emociones” y de la idea de construcción de escenarios imaginarios. Aquí propondré que sus propuestas fallan en sus dos puntos centrales, a partir de problemas que son, sin embargo, independientes. Por un lado, sus ideas sobre las emociones que sentimos al estar atrapados por una obra de ficción fallan al suponer una versión inaceptable de la tesis cognitivista acerca de las emociones. Por otro, sus ideas sobre la construcción de mundos imaginarios por parte de los “consumidores de ficción” fallan al suponer una dicotomía entre mundos de ficción y realidad. Finalmente, discutiré brevemente el modo en que ambos tipos de problemas repercuten sobre la viabilidad del planteo de la paradoja misma.

En este trabajo me propongo explorar algunas consecuencias que implica adoptar una lectura disolutoria fuerte de las Investigaciones Filosóficas de Wittgenstein. A tal fin, recorreré los textos clave para la lectura disolutoria y exploraré la relación que tal concepción guarda con el estilo de composición de la obra, a partir de la clarificación del tipo de objetivo que Wittgenstein se propone. A partir de allí, desarrollaré las consecuencias que supone el modo wittgensteiniano de entender la terapia filosófica sobre los recursos argumentativos con que puede desarrollarse dicha empresa, en términos del contraste entre argumentación y persuasión. Finalmente, propondré que el trabajo del terapeuta filosófico que pretende llevarnos a ver el lenguaje de otra manera puede iluminarse a partir de un paralelismo con el tratamiento wittgensteiniano de la visión de aspectos.

En este trabajo analizo el entramado conceptual de la concepción causal de la metáfora (Davidson 1978). Para ello me enfocaré en primer lugar en su discusión con las concepciones semánticas, lo que nos llevará a discutir el tratamiento davidsoniano de la noción de significado y su distinción entre significado de la oración y significado del hablante. Luego plantearé un problema interno a este enfoque, en términos de cómo entender esta última distinción dentro del marco nominalista del pragmatismo davidsoniano. Finalmente, analizaré las consecuencias de adoptar este enfoque a la hora de pensar a las metáforas como vehículos para la transmisión de contenido cognitivo.

While some form of loss of control is often assumed to be a common feature of the diverse manifestations of addiction, it is far from clear how loss of control should be understood. In this paper, I put forward a concept of decrease in control in addiction that aims to fill this gap and thus provide a general framework for thinking about addictive behavior. The development of this account involves two main steps. First, I present a view of degrees of control as the degree to which an agent would be responsive to potential or counterfactual sufficient reasons to do otherwise. Second, I sketch an account of the relevant control-undermining factors in addiction that is consonant with my proposed view of degrees of control. Being a high-level functional property, reasons-responsiveness is particularly well suited to frame an account of control-undermining factors that is doubly pluralistic: it encompasses the contribution of factors both internal and external to the agent, and it is consistent with various proposals as to the precise nature of the anomaly taking place in the psychology of addiction.

In this paper I look into a problem concerning the characterization of the main conceptual commitments of the ‘post-cognitivist’ theoretical framework. I first consider critically a proposal put forward by Rowlands (2010), which identifies the theoretical nucleus of post-cognitivism with a convergence of the theses of the extended and the embodied mind. The shortcomings I find in this proposal lead me to an indepedent and wider issue concerning the apparent tensions between functionalism and the embodied and enactive approaches.

G.E. Moore’s argument in “Proof of an External World” seems to beg the question against the skeptic and to miss the point of the challenge posed by skeptical hypotheses. I propose an interpretation that frees the argument from both charges. Starting from a distinction between the way Moore understood his dialectical position against the idealist and the skeptic, I attempt to illuminate the conception of skepticism that lies behind his argument. I propose that the argument’s core is found in a strong anti-Cartesian statement, even though its relevance for epistemology is to be found in its potential as a stance regarding justification which is closer to the problematic of Pyrrhonic skepticism.