While technically true, it feels kinda blamey and thought-terminating. I prefer to view addiction as a medical condition because it puts the focus on treatment and prevention rather than who did wrong.
I do agree with that, but you can’t say there wasn’t awareness on his side.
While I follow some of your argument I cannot entirely absolve the self in matters of addiction. It is a medical condition, but I wouldn’t call alcoholics who drive under the influence and kill a person not responsible for their actions., therefore drowning in a drug induced stupor has a function of responsibility in it.
At some point, I radically rejected the concept of blame for extreme cases — all the way from drunk driving to murder. I think it’s necessary to prevent these people who are acting irrationally from hurting others, but it just feels like a waste of my emotional energy to assign blame to someone who’s behaving in a way I can’t comprehend.
For context, someone in my family was killed when I was a kid. I still feel anger at the perpetrator, but I can’t even pretend to understand what would go through their head to make them act the way they did. My conclusion was just that they’re basically an alien to me — a broken person who can’t be trusted and has to be locked up. But did they commit a sin?
After writing this, I realize it’s the same sentiment as “Larry Ellison is a lawnmower.”
Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don’t anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn - you stick your hand in there and it’ll chop it off, the end. You don’t think “oh, the lawnmower hates me” – lawnmower doesn’t give a shit about you, lawnmower can’t hate you. Don’t anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don’t fall into that trap about Oracle.
I can see how that makes coping easier. And follow your agreement for a bit.
The grasmower argument doesn’t gel with me, though. I can’t release human agency that easily. I mean one doesn’t have to anthropomorphize a human being, as they are -well- a human being.
But on the ethical side of this much debate is possible. It hangs on the free will/ determination side of debate, not really one end all answer.
It’s SO sad what happened to him. Imagine having a colostomy because you couldn’t stop doing drugs. Or drowning.
I’d argue it didn’t happen to him, but he did it to himself. A sad way to go, for sure, but he was well aware of him doing it.
While technically true, it feels kinda blamey and thought-terminating. I prefer to view addiction as a medical condition because it puts the focus on treatment and prevention rather than who did wrong.
I do agree with that, but you can’t say there wasn’t awareness on his side.
While I follow some of your argument I cannot entirely absolve the self in matters of addiction. It is a medical condition, but I wouldn’t call alcoholics who drive under the influence and kill a person not responsible for their actions., therefore drowning in a drug induced stupor has a function of responsibility in it.
I do see where you’re coming from!
At some point, I radically rejected the concept of blame for extreme cases — all the way from drunk driving to murder. I think it’s necessary to prevent these people who are acting irrationally from hurting others, but it just feels like a waste of my emotional energy to assign blame to someone who’s behaving in a way I can’t comprehend.
For context, someone in my family was killed when I was a kid. I still feel anger at the perpetrator, but I can’t even pretend to understand what would go through their head to make them act the way they did. My conclusion was just that they’re basically an alien to me — a broken person who can’t be trusted and has to be locked up. But did they commit a sin?
After writing this, I realize it’s the same sentiment as “Larry Ellison is a lawnmower.”
https://simonwillison.net/2024/Sep/17/bryan-cantrill/
I can see how that makes coping easier. And follow your agreement for a bit.
The grasmower argument doesn’t gel with me, though. I can’t release human agency that easily. I mean one doesn’t have to anthropomorphize a human being, as they are -well- a human being.
But on the ethical side of this much debate is possible. It hangs on the free will/ determination side of debate, not really one end all answer.