please summarize this essay in 500 words: Introduction
R. Jay Wallace’s article, “Addiction as Defect of the Will,” and Neil Levy’s article, “Autonomy and Addiction,” delve into the complex relationship between addiction, autonomy, and responsibility. Both authors explore how addiction can impact individuals’ capacity for rational decision-making and the ethical implications of such impairments. This paper seeks to summarize the key ideas presented in each article while also examining how Wallace and Levy might respond to the question of whether addicts are responsible for their actions in attempting to fulfill their addictive desires. Lastly, I will be adding my own thoughts and opinions to both sides of the discussion. 

Summary of “Addiction as Defect of the Will” by Wallace
In his article, Wallace views addiction as a defect of the will, focusing on the compromised self-governance experienced by addicts. He argues that addiction involves a failure to meet one’s own standards and values, with individuals succumbing to their addictive desires and acting against their rational judgments. Wallace differentiates between the traditional disease model of addiction, where addicts are seen as lacking full responsibility, and the choice model, which holds addicts accountable for their actions.

According to Wallace, addicts retain a degree of responsibility for their actions, even though they may struggle with impaired self-control. He proposes that external interventions, such as therapy or counseling, can assist addicts in regaining control over their lives and restoring their responsibility. By strengthening intentions and aligning desires with rational judgments, addicts can gradually regain their agency and hold themselves accountable for their actions. 

Summary of “Autonomy and Addiction” by Levy
Levy’s article takes a broader perspective, exploring the implications of addiction on autonomy. He argues that addiction compromises individuals’ capacity for rational self-governance, preventing them from acting in alignment with their goals and values. Levy challenges the view that autonomy is solely an internal, self-contained capacity. Instead, he suggests that it is a social and cognitive process influenced by various factors.
Levy contends that addiction undermines autonomy by altering an individual’s cognitive mechanisms, distorting their decision-making processes, and diminishing their capacity to resist addictive desires. He highlights the importance of addressing cognitive biases and fostering a supportive social environment to restore autonomy to addicts. Levy also raises concerns about society’s response to addicted individuals. He emphasizes the necessity of avoiding stigmatization and adopting interventions that comprehensively support their autonomy.

Analysis: Responsibility and Addictive Desires
When discussing the question of addicts’ responsibility for their own actions in attempting to satisfy their addictive desires, both Wallace and Levy offer nuanced perspectives. Wallace’s argument leans towards holding addicts responsible for their actions, although he acknowledges that addiction also impairs their self-control. He emphasizes that even in the face of addiction, individuals possess the capacity to rebuild their intentions and align them with rational judgments, taking steps towards self-governance. While external interventions are vital for supporting addicts in this process, Wallace suggests that addicts can be accountable for their actions as they strive to regain control over their behavior.
Levy’s viewpoint aligns more with the disease model of addiction, which suggests that addicts have limited control over their actions due to the neurobiological changes induced by addiction. He questions the notion of individual responsibility in the conventional sense, arguing that addiction compromises an individual’s rational decision-making processes. Levy’s focus is on addressing the larger context and factors that influence autonomy, rather than solely assigning responsibility to addicts for their addictive actions.
Both authors would likely agree that the question of addicts’ responsibility depends on their stage of recovery and the level of self-control they possess. Throughout their articles, Wallace and Levy emphasize the importance of external support and interventions to mitigate the influence of addictive desires and restore autonomy. They recognize that holding addicts fully responsible without taking into account the impairments caused by addiction might be morally and practically unrealistic.

Opinion Statement
	I think the ideas that Wallace and Levy propose could both very well be plausible, but I think combining the two models of looking at addiction and responsibility would be the best scenario. Both the disease approach model to addiction and the choice model have “good” and “bad” aspects in my eyes. 
	Wallace’s approach, the choice model, contends that addiction is primarily a matter of personal choice and free will. I would disagree with this belief, because I do not think individuals willingly engage in substance abuse. They are not always fully aware of the associated risks and consequences, like Wallace argues and other choice models advocate that they do. Factors such as trauma, mental health issues, socioeconomic circumstances, and peer pressure often contribute to the development and perpetuation of addiction. Therefore, solely blaming addicts for their actions oversimplifies the issue. However, I do agree with Wallace on the point that labeling addiction as a disease can undermine an individual’s autonomy and accountability. I think this model misses that much more goes into the journey to becoming an addict than just making a choice. Yet, Wallace does do a good job of acknowledging that addicts need to take responsibility. 
	Levy’s approach, the disease model, frames addiction as a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is beyond an individual’s control. I think this perspective paints addicts as powerless and unable to exert meaningful control over their actions. While there is evidence to support the notion that addiction produces physiological changes in the brain, I think it is essential to recognize that addicts have a measure of responsibility for their behaviors. Addicts possess some level of choice in their actions leading up to fulfillment of their desires. They may make conscious decisions to associate with enabling environments or engage in risky behaviors, thereby exacerbating their addiction. Moreover, seeking initial substance use often involves a choice, even if it is driven by various risk factors such as genetic predisposition, environmental influence, or psychological vulnerabilities. Therefore, while some aspects of addiction may be beyond an individual’s conscious control, they are still accountable for the choices that they make while in pursuit of their addictive desires.


Highlighting the “good” and the “bad” from each model shows how important it is to have an integrative approach to understanding addiction. I believe it is really important to acknowledge the underlying complexities associated with addiction, but everyone should still be held accountable for their actions. To better understand addiction, a balanced perspective is necessary, one that encompasses elements from both the disease and choice models. It is undeniable that addiction’s neurobiological aspects, including physiological changes in the brain, contribute to compulsive behaviors. However, this does not eradicate individual responsibility altogether. Recognizing that addicts have some control over their choices helps prevent passivity, and encourages the development of personal agency necessary for recovery.
By adopting this balanced approach, it allows for a more compassionate understanding of addiction, while still holding individuals accountable for their actions. This recognition of personal responsibility should be applied in a manner that supports and promotes treatment and rehabilitation, rather than punitive measures. By focusing on prevention, education, and access to effective treatment, society can help addicts break free from the cycle of addiction while preserving their dignity and autonomy.