Does the rational theory of addiction suffer explanatory impotence?

Abstract In this essay I examine the Rational Theory of Addiction proposed by Becker and Murphy in 1988. Their theory is an extension of rational choice theory to explain and predict aspects of addiction. Becker and Murphy conceive of addiction as a process of deciding to use (or abstaining from use) based on a rationally well-informed decision that consumption (or non-consumption of) the drug will maximize benefit over costs. I propose formal diagnostic conditions for the term 'addict' according to RTA. I then show how the theory has explanatory deficits in differentiating between two kinds of addicts (willing and unwilling addicts).
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,701
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Only published papers are available at libraries

    Similar books and articles

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-03-19

    Total downloads

    12 ( #93,408 of 549,124 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums