We find that we suffer from a disease, not a moral dilemma. We were critically ill, not hopelessly bad.
Basic Text, p. 16
=
For many of us, Narcotics Anonymous was the answer to a personal puzzle of long standing. Why did we always feel alone, even in a crowd, we wondered? Why did we do so many crazy, self-destructive things? Why did we feel so badly about ourselves so much of the time? And how had our lives gotten so messed up? We thought we were hopelessly bad, or perhaps hopelessly insane.
Given that, it was a great relief to learn we suffered from a disease. Addiction that was the source of our problems. A disease, we realized, could be treated. And when we treat our disease, we can begin to recover.
Today, when we see symptoms of our disease resurfacing in our lives, we need not despair. After all, its a treatable disease we have, not a moral dilemma. We can be grateful we can recover from the disease of addiction through the application of the Twelve Steps of NA.
=
Just for today: I am grateful that I have a treatable disease, not a moral dilemma. I will continue applying the treatment for the disease of addiction by practicing the NA program.
-- Edited by Dave R on Thursday 5th of September 2013 06:36:43 AM
I think a better way to say this would be "We suffer from a disease, not a moral weakness."
A moral dilemma is a choice between two or more options that are equally good or bad.
The problem is not one of weakness of will. We have a disease.
1Q - How do you justify calling alcoholism an illness, and not a moral responsibility? (The Disease Concept)
1A - Early in A.A.'s history, very natural questions arose among theologians. There was a Mr. Henry Link who had written "The Return to Religion (Macmillan Co., 1937). One day I received a call from him. He stated that he strongly objected to the A.A. position that alcoholism was an illness. This concept, he felt, removed moral responsibility from alcoholics. He had been voicing this complaint about psychiatrists in the American Mercury. And now, he stated, he was about to lambaste A.A. too. Of course, I made haste to point out that we A. A.'s did not use the concept of sickness to absolve our members from moral responsibility. On the contrary, we used the fact of fatal illness to clamp the heaviest kind of moral responsibility on to the sufferer. The further point was made that in his early days of drinking the alcoholic often was no doubt guilty of irresponsibility and gluttony. But once the time of compulsive drinking, veritable lunacy had arrived and he couldn't very well be held accountable for his conduct. He then had a lunacy which condemned him to drink, in spite of all he could do; he had developed a bodily sensitivity to alcohol that guaranteed his final madness and death. When this state of affairs was pointed out to him, he was placed immediately under the heaviest kind of pressure to accept A.A.'s moral and spiritual program of regeneration - namely, our Twelve Steps. Fortunately, Mr. Link was satisfied with this view of the use that we were making of the alcoholic's illness. I am glad to report that nearly all theologians who have since thought about this matter have also agreed with that early position. While it is most obvious that free will in the matter of alcohol has virtually disappeared in most cases, we A.A. 's do point out that plenty of free will is left in other areas, It certainly takes a large amount of willingness, and a great exertion of the will to accept and practice the A.A. program. It is by this very exertion of the will that the alcoholic corresponds with the grace by which his drinking obsession can be expelled. (N.C.C.A. 'Blue Book', Vol.12, 1960)
Interesting discussion.
Yes, addiction is a disease, but once an addict joins NA he is presented with a choice.
I don't like the term 'moral responsiblity' it smacks of judgement,
but once we start going to meetings we learn that there is a way out.
Pick up the phone BEFORE you pick up the drug.