My guess is you aren't an alcoholic.

One of my wife's brother's is. Ultimately, at least at this point, there is no questioning that the only way to overcome alcoholism is through willpower.

That isn't the question.

Rather, the question is why he requires such sheer willpower to do what comes without a thought to the rest of us.

His will is weaker.

Sorry, but genetics is obviously a very strong influence on behavior. Or do you think people, cats, dogs, sheep, etc. all tend to behave differently because they've just decided to do so?

Also, it's well-established that changing levels of testosterone, estrogen and other hormones can radically change behavior. Since your hormonal balance is largely determined by genes, that means that your behavior is at least partly controlled by your genes, right?

No. It means that times it may be more difficult to control your behavior than at others. Likewise, some people may face a greater challenge in controlling their behavior. But free will remains.

"It means that times it may be more difficult to control your behavior than at others."

Who is the controller?

OJ:

I have a drink, and it takes absolutely no will power to not have a second.

That decision is impossible for him.

Maybe it isn't his will that is weaker, but what it has to resist is stronger. Far, far, stronger.

To assert it his will alone that is weak is beyond facile.

Why does he have a drink if he knows he's more susceptible once he starts?

Come on, OJ.

Maybe he doesn't have one in the first place, most of the time.

That's why alcoholics and ex-alcoholics will have an orange juice when everyone else is having a single pint or glass of wine.

They know that once they start, they cannot stop. So they don't start in the first place.

That's genuine willpower, especially when booze is the foundation of your social circle, and all around are saying "Oh go on, have a drink - one won't hurt you..."

The interesting question is: why do some people have to resist, and drink orange juice?

Brit:

Why ask the pivotal question instead of tossing off insults?

After all, schizophrenia is clearly just a matter of will power. All of us could be schizophrenic, but most have the will power not to be. Therefore, no point asking why schizophrenia exists.

Brit:

Ever been to Alcoholics Anonymous?

Brit/Jeff:

"They know that once they start, they cannot stop"

Is it possible that you guys are attracted to genetic explanations for things like gayness and alcoholism because you fear that without them there will be no basis for compassion and tolerance? That doesn't hold for the religious, although I can see why it causes you a problem.

How about all those guys charged with sexual offences who try hard to convince the public that matters reached such a heated point that they just "couldn't" stop? What's a red-blooded, gene-driven guy supposed to do?

Yes, they can stop, even after one drink, even though the effort may be herculean and they merit a lot of support. They would be extremely unwise to try in most cases and the odds of failing are high, maybe for genetic reasons among others. Too many of those who think they can't spend a life in self-pity, family recrimination and crippling navel-gazing, even after they stop drinking.

Peter:

It's simple genetic determinism--they have to explain everything biologically or their theories crumble.

OJ

You mean those places where people go when they've got the willpower to admit they've got a problem, confront their shame and try to actively do something about it?

And, no doubt, passing the pub on the way?

"It's simple genetic determinism..."

Well that's the thing. Nothing is ever 'simple'.

'It's all in the genes' is inadequate.
'It's just a matter of willpower' is also inadequate.

You'll realise that when your nose is a bit older, OJ.

Brit:

Yes, yes, the world is so full of a number of things...

You guys sometimes leave the impression you think ideas of genetic or hereditary influence are brand new or at odds with traditional thinking. Ever hear old Victorian ladies complain about "bad seed". It's all well and good to say it's complicated when you are backed into a corner, but it seems to take a lot of argument to get you to shift from determinism to influence. There is a very big difference.

Peter

Who is 'backed into a corner'?

I just asked the question: "why do some people have to resist, and drink orange juice?"

I don't claim to have the answer.

But I would guess that the balance of genetic predisposition, willpower and other external factors (such as stress from difficulties in personal life etc) varies from person to person.

Brit:

"Who is 'backed into a corner'?"

I says you. Wanna step outside? :-)

Brit:

Of course it varies--then each person chooses, regardless of how hard or easy the choice may be.

Agreed - so the question is: why does it vary?

Why is it an easy choice for some people to stop after one drink, and a very difficult choice for others - so difficult, in fact, that they choose not to drink at all?

(ever feel like you're going round in circles?)

For conservatives, going in circles is a feature, not a bug.

So, let's talk pedophilia. Some people are sexually fixated on pre-pubescent children. Some of those people are unable to restrain their impulse to act on those feelings. They would argue that they are in exactly the same position as Jeff says alcoholics are in. Some even argue that they are in the same position as homosexuals used to be: it is mere prejudice and religious fanaticism that would punish them for acting on their natural urges. After all, god wouldn't have made them like that if he didn't approve of what they do.

So, is it right to blame people for their pedophilia, but not blame alcoholics for their drinking or homosexuals for their homosexuality.

By the way, just to prove we don't have to go in circles, let me foreclose one line of argument upfront: it explains nothing to say that pedophilia is not consensual. First, sometimes it is. Second, drinking, for example, harms others who don't consent -- spouses, children, employers and drivers on the other side of the median.

Also, I understand that your sense of morality distinguishes between the three. So does mine. But given that your morality can only be rooted in society, why shouldn't those who disagree try to change it.

Brit:

No, I feel like you and Jeff are making progress. Harry's Stalinism makes him hopeless.

David

I've never said that having a genetic predisposition to anything - be it alcoholism, homosexuality or paedophilia - excuses an individual of all responsibility for their actions.These things are almost certainly a matter of degree.

Nor would it mean that we can't lock paedophiles up if they are a danger to children.

But that there may be genetic dispositions to these things is surely worth investigating.

To blithely state that 'Oh, it's just their choice, they're weak-willed' is not only naive, but potentially harmful, since it dogmatically closes an avenue of investigation for possible help/treatment of abnormal behaviour.

------

Incidentally: "it explains nothing to say that pedophilia is not consensual. First, sometimes it is. "

That's quite wrong. Paedophilia, by definition, involves sex with someone below the age of consent. Some children may think they're consenting, but we do not grant them the right to consent.

Children often think they know what's best for them. They don't.

OJ

Thank you, but that doesn't answer the question.

Brit:

It was a yes or no question right?

....Agreed - so the question is: why does it vary?

Why is it an easy choice for some people to stop after one drink, and a very difficult choice for others - so difficult, in fact, that they choose not to drink at all?

Brit --

Yes, that sentence was there just for you. If memory serves, your first comments here, other than on Irish literature, were about the sancrosanct age of consent. (Boy, am I easily amused.)

As for the substance, I'm with you but NAMBLA isn't. As far as they're concerned, the very concept of an age of consent is hoary superstition meant to block positive, natural relationships of a type that have been perfectly acceptable in various cultures throughout history. As it happens, even in our culture the age of consent has, relatively recently, been set at ages we would now consider pedophilic.

You say that we can punish people for acting consistently with their natural/genetic urges. That is the great rhetorical benefit of pedophilia -- it makes that concession inescapable for decent people. But, the line having been moved so far, so fast, so recently, I'm skeptical that it can stop short now.

Finally, as you suggest, willpower is not irrelevant to alcoholism. If alcoholics are given greater incentive to regulate their behavior, won't they? And won't we all be better off if they do? (This may, however, be more of an American issue than a British issue, given the whipsawing we've gone through over drunkeness and, particularly, drunking driving over the last 30 years.)

David

First, well done, but I'm not sure whether to be impressed or rather frightened by your prodigious memory. You're not keeping files on us, are you?

"You say that we can punish people for acting consistently with their natural/genetic urges."

Indeed, but this question is impossible to tackle without that old chestnut: defining what 'punishment' is, and our stated reasons for doing it.

Eg. if by 'punishment' we mean basically imprisonment, the possible justifications might be:

1) to protect the general public for the duration of the offender's imprisonment
2) to attempt to 'reform' the offender, and help them learn the error of their ways
3) as a deterrent against punishable behaviour
4) because offenders are evil and should be punished, as a form of 'revenge' by society.

Any discovery of a genetic disposition towards certain behaviours - even paedophilia - will of course weaken the justification number 4, and possibly show number 3 to be useless.

But number 1 is unaffected and we may learn enough about the causes of such behaviours to actually make number 2 effective.

By the way, I'm having a bit of difficulty with reconciling these two statements in your post:

"As it happens, even in our culture the age of consent has, relatively recently, been set at ages we would now consider pedophilic."

and

"But, the line having been moved so far, so fast, so recently, I'm skeptical that it can stop short now."

So we are gettting tougher on paedophilia and the our notions of consent, or we are getting softer to the point where there's a danger of it collapsing... Which is it?

I really do think that your fear that liberal attitudes are a threat to children is wildly misplaced.

If anything, liberals tend to get accused of being over-hysterical and over-protective of children, to the point where it has become virtually impossible, for example, for a teacher and pupil to be alone in a classroom.

Brit:

Well, if the teacher has a genetic predisposition to pedophilia they shouldn't be left alone, should they?

It's fascinating how often a given state of the world admits of two almost diametrically opposite explanations. If all we know about the world is that teachers are not allowed to be alone with students, we can't choose between the explanation that children in that world are safer, because there are more rules protecting them, or so unsafe that rules must be set up protecting them.

In our world, the answer is neither. This rule is for the protection of teachers, who can't defend themselves against any charge of sexual predation if there was opportunity. In this, we are like the honor ridden societies we make fun of in which it is conclusively presumed that any woman found alone with a man is guilty of fornication.

Which brings me to my point. Because we are not comfortable making moral judgments, we are increasingly dependent upon the law to replace morality in the defence of civilization. But the law is a tool of civilization's natural enemy, man, and thus is no protection at all. NAMBLA's argument is nuts, but it is not illogical.

You have all gone well off the beam.

The question of alcoholism, or pedophilia, is why some succumb to those things, while most don't give them a second thought.

"Will power" masquerades as an answer, but it isn't, because it begs the original question.

Why do some require will power to avoid doing these things? The answer to the question has nothing to do with morality, or the age of consent. Those have to do with the fact of the act, not the reason behind it.

As with homosexuality, I bet most alcoholics are born that way. I doubt anyone posting here could not choose to become an alcoholic, no matter how hard they tried (presuming there are no sufferers from this horrible disease in the posting audience).

Knowing why might provide the direction to a cure more reliable than relying on what must be herculean will power.

Or, we could just toss insults.

Jeff:

I'm an alcoholic. My Father is an alcoholic. He stopped drinking entirely. I did mostly. All you have to do is want to.

"The question of alcoholism, or pedophilia, is why some succumb to those things, while most don't give them a second thought."

Jeff, why is that the first question? Isn't the first question how we should respond to those afflicted?

Previous debates have made clear that you believe the question of whether gayness is genetic or not should determine our whole approach to that issue, right up to constitutional rights and whether democracy should prevail. Now, where are you going with alcoholism? Should alcoholics be treated more leniently by the criminal law because you think it is genetic? Do alcoholic bank robbers get lighter sentences? Drunk drivers? Should long-suffering wives stay the course longer than disenchanted wives of aldulterers? Should employment laws be more lenient for alcoholics than the simply lazy or immature?

You seem to think we are being cruel or unsympathetic, but where do you want us to go? For someone as obviously and rightly proud of his sense of responsibility as you, you seem to hold so many others to a different standard of accountability. Recall how furious you become when a certain blogger refers to things in your past as determining your views.

Peter

I know we're all eager to get hanging and flogging, but it's a question of understanding the causes of a disease.

If you can answer the question 'why is it so hard for some people to stop at one drink, so that they'd rather not drink at all?', then maybe you can find ways of helping those people who find it so hard - or maybe those people can have access to ways of helping themselves.

What's the problem?

(Well, we know what the problem is. The problem is that every time the word 'gene' is used, you get the jitters.)

Brit:

Of course we get the jitters, just like we get the jitters when certain progressive types talk about how poverty causes crime. After a time, you know what is coming next. The modern ego te absolvo.

It seems rather evident that there is a relationship between alcoholism and heredity, because we see it run in familes. It is equally self-evident that nurture plays a role, because broken families and communities have a higher incidence. Who would deny culture is important after comparing northern and southern Europe? And comparing the prevalence of alcoholism in, say, early 19th century and 1950's Britain points to the importance of social regulation and control, no?

So who should we listen to--the geneticist, the sociologist, the anthropologist or the probibitionist? Like you, they all say they only want to help these poor people.

BTW, why are we touting a genetic explanation for alcoholism in order to help and cure them when we use the same explanation for gayness to validate and accommodate them?

Because most people would put alcoholism in the 'disease/disorder' category.

Fewer people put homosexuality in that category. Some do, but fewer.

All addictions are diseases, but they're mainly mental. Interestyingly, you can die going cold turkey from alcohol, but not heroin.

OJ:

I can scarcely imagine a worse disease.

Peter:

I am making the assumption that these diseases have material causes. And, like other diseases, the only cure is material. (The immense exertion of will required to live with alcoholism is not a cure, but rather a triumph over adversity.)

And, like another disease we speak of here often, the morality is bound in context. Drinking, in and of itself, is not immoral. But it can occur to an extent, or under circumstances, that make it very much so.

So, in answer to your question, I don't think the damage that alcholics do to others' lives should be treated the least leniently simply because they were born that way. But then it really is all about context, isn't it? After all, the prime means of determining alcoholism is the extent of the damage, not the drinking itself.

But that is as may be. Wouldn't it be wonderful to find something that would stop alcoholics from ever having to fear alcohol?

If it were just a matter of will, as Orrin thinks, then there could be people who willed not to sin, but he also says no one can fail to sin.

I suppose he'd say that the sin is extranatural and imposed on us by god (which creates some severe logical problems as well), but how would we distinguish between god's imposition of sin and a genetic imperative?

If an individual can will anything, then he can keep repeating that with different problems until he has willed everything and has become perfectly good.

That's logic and not, in my view, of any real meaning on the specific question of alcoholism.

My uncle was for many years personnel manager of a mill with 5,000 employees. Long ago, he told me that all alcoholics are lonely.

At the time, I scoffed. Made me think, though, and now that I've had a lot more experience with alcoholics, I'd say he's either completely right or very nearly.

Harry:

You can't will anything, but can much.

Jeff:

They can take medications that make them incredibly sick when they drink, but AA works for anyone who's serious about stopping. Most aren't.

Why can you will one thing but not another?

Are there some individual things no human can will? If so, what are they?

If human A can will X, what prevents human B from also willing X?

If anything can be willed by any one person, why cannot it be willed by all?

If you cannot answer these kinds of questions, you're not going to be able to sustain your argument that we are morally equal.

I happen to agree with you that we are morally equal (in potentia). I even agree that willpower is important.

But if those two are true, then sin is not inevitable.

Because Men are fallen and our wills are sometimes weaker than our proclivity for sin. Non-alcoholics are not therefore good people--they likely are weak-willed in other areas. More importantly, not all recognize the need to resist their natural impulses. No one is always strong-willed in all areas.

I'm feeling a desire to enunciate the principle called Conservation of Misery. Kind of like Conservation of Energy, or Matter, or Momentum. But different.

Well, at least until I saw how silly such a thing is.

Saying Men are fallen--even if true--says not a darn thing about a particular instance of the class Men.

Harry--there you go, making complete sense again.

Jeff:

Yesm, but you don't believe you or Harry ever sin, so Fallenness must sound odd.