And it's not lazy or delusional to claim addiction is as simple as being a disease?
If anything, that's a more lazy approach than saying it's a failing of self-control, which is itself a complicated and complex issue (hence my paragraphs and qualifications and whatnot above).
Writing it off as "a disease" removes all agency from the individual involved, whose lack of self-control is probably why they're addicted in the first place. That's true regardless of whether or not the addiction itself is a disease or a lack of self-control.
Saying "it's a disease" is also hugely insulting to the many people who have broken addictions by improving their self control. Even if you consider it a "disease", every person who has accomplished this has proven that the cure sometimes really is "improve your self-control".
And if that works in some cases, how can you prove whether or not it will work in another case without trying it first?
If anything, that's a more lazy approach than saying it's a failing of self-control, which is itself a complicated and complex issue (hence my paragraphs and qualifications and whatnot above).
Writing it off as "a disease" removes all agency from the individual involved, whose lack of self-control is probably why they're addicted in the first place. That's true regardless of whether or not the addiction itself is a disease or a lack of self-control.
Saying "it's a disease" is also hugely insulting to the many people who have broken addictions by improving their self control. Even if you consider it a "disease", every person who has accomplished this has proven that the cure sometimes really is "improve your self-control".
And if that works in some cases, how can you prove whether or not it will work in another case without trying it first?