Addiction, free will and self controlAddiction, free will and self control
All In The Mind
Heard the one about the psychiatrist, the Supreme Court judge and the philosopher who walked in to a radio studio...? Join Natasha Mitchell and guests in a roundtable interrogation of how the brain sciences are changing our understanding of addiction, and the powerful consequences for notions of free will, responsibility and culpability.
29:58•24 Oct 2009
Addiction, Free Will and Self-Control on All In The Mind
Episode Overview
- Addiction can be seen as a health problem involving repeated harmful use despite efforts to stop, rather than simply a moral failure.
- Heavy, long-term drug use reshapes the brain’s reward and control systems, making drug cues more powerful and normal rewards less satisfying.
- Autonomy and responsibility exist in degrees and depend on social support, opportunity and broader life circumstances.
- Courts still rely on common-sense ideas of intention and control, but neuroscience may refine legal categories and inform more humane sentencing.
- Enriched, opportunity-rich environments are more likely than punishment alone to shift brain reward systems and support recovery.
“What does change dopamine is putting people in enriched environments, putting them in situations where there's more opportunities.”
Understand the complexities of addiction with insights from a psychiatrist, a Supreme Court judge and a moral philosopher sharing the studio together. This roundtable on **All In The Mind** looks at how brain science is reshaping ideas about addiction, free will and responsibility, and what that might mean for everyday people caught up in drug and alcohol problems.
You’ll hear addiction psychiatrist Dan Lubman explain what it means to call addiction a "brain disease" and why his patients often feel stuck in a pattern of "repeated failed attempt to actually reduce or stop using" despite wanting change. He breaks down how drugs trigger "dopamine overdrive" in the brain’s reward system and how, over time, ordinary pleasures lose their pull while drug cues gain enormous power.
Crucially, he stresses that people with long-term addictions aren’t "total automatons" – they can still make choices, though their self-control is strained in high-stress, emotional situations. Philosopher Jeanette Kennett digs into ideas of autonomy and agency, arguing that "autonomy too, like responsibility, comes in degrees" and depends heavily on social support.
She challenges the simple split between seeing addiction as either a disease or a moral failing, calling for a more nuanced view that recognises how social disadvantage, opportunity and support shape people’s capacity to act on their values. Justice David Hodgson brings the legal angle, debating how courts should treat addicted offenders.
He defends punishment based on desert as a safeguard against abusing state power, yet accepts that addiction can "considerably reduce" a person’s capacity for reason and self-control and should factor into sentencing, especially where treatment is available. Together, they ask tough questions about culpability, compulsory treatment, and whether enriched environments might be more effective than punishment.
If you’re curious about how science, ethics and law intersect around addiction, this conversation might get you rethinking where responsibility ends and support needs to begin.
Do you want to link to this podcast?
Get the buttons here!
More From This Show
The latest episodes from the same podcast.