My conclusion is that addiction as a disease should not be used to justify misconducts. I believe this conclusion is right because the passage by Stanley Peele is about addiction as a disease model becoming socially accepted by the society as a custom. Addiction is not …show more content…
The premise, accepting compulsion as a disease will make a world in which a reason is advanced to legitimize a shortcoming, a world which will transform into a complete issue, commits a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc because it explains what will happen in the world if we accept addiction as a disease. It is fallacy of supposing that because one event follows another, then the second has been caused by the first.
The premise, people with addictions would be held less "responsible for their activities notwithstanding when they have hurt others" since they would be thought wiped out as Governor Dukakis puts enslavement as an ailment, commits fallacy of false cause. Not all people with addictions are held less accountable for their actions. It is only possible if an addict is diagnosed with some disease. The former does not cause the latter.
The premise, psychologists and attorneys consider trouble making of addicts as " uncontrollable compulsions" which they think as a type of infection, commits a fallacy of question begging epithets because an epithet "uncontrollable compulsions" has been used to describe the misbehavior of addicts. The author used this epithet to support his argument that addiction is being accepted as a disease by the psychologist and