In David Hume's Of Liberty and Necessity, the relationship between liberty and necessity are examined. According to Hume, like the phenomenon of the physical world, human beings act in accordance to a set of natural laws which govern our actions. If we were to look at the entirety of human existence and analyze how human beings behaved, it would be fairly obvious that mankind has behaved relatively the same throughout all of human history--"the same uniformity and regular operation of natural principles are discernable." This, according to Hume, indicates that there are some natural laws which guide individuals to make choices and live in a way which not only benefits his or herself, but benefits society as well, which Hume stresses is not only an important aspect of human life, but is actually a necessity.
It would be nice to say that the life of a human is clear cut and predetermined--we must simply live and listen to our intuition, for it is in line with natural law. This would make for a very happy world as well. However, it is clear that mankind seems to err...a lot. Requiem for a Dream highlights a very severe result of human error: drug addiction. So how is it that if there is a set of laws which should guide an individual to the most prime life possible, someone can make a choice that literally erodes at his or her humanity? Hume would blame this on liberty, on the freedom to choose whether or not to follow those natural laws or not.
Heroin is not the most addictive drug someone can use. In fact, for many people, it takes a few uses to develop an addiction. Because of this, an individual's will (the internal impression we feel and are conscious of when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or our new perception of the mind) has lead him or her to make a clear, conscious, and free choice to use heroin. Of course, overtime, this freedom is eliminated once addiction takes over. It appears that drug addicts (when they get to the point that the four individuals in the movie got to) are not only not in line with natural human law, but have also lost their liberty--these are two aspects of humanity that Hume emphasizes as being true and real for every individual.
Are drug addicts less human than individuals with the ability to exercise freedom and adhere to natural law? I think this is an interesting concept when analyzing our country's current approach to drug addicts. In my opinion, the difference between a drug addict and a murderer is that a murderer has clearly and concisely (for the most part, I suppose) exercised his or her freedom and made the choice to murder. A drug addict, on the other hand, has lost all ability to clearly and concisely choose the action that would be best. Regardless, according to the law, they are criminals who deserve punishment. Harry and Tyrone's fates land them in a god awful prison. When Harry's arm becomes infected, the doctor's treat him with disgust and curse him for being an addict. Although it was Harry's choice to use drugs in the beginning of his time as a drug user, his liberty was so depleted that it nearly became impossible for him to make a decision that would help him and not hurt him. What can you say about an individual who is not only acting in opposition to human law, but has also lost their freedom?
Personally I would argue that what we can say about persons who get into the intricate world of drugs must recognize themselves for who they are. I've heard horrible stories from folks who were dealing with their own addiction, but because their minds were so warped due to the experience, they in a way enjoyed being a junkie, simply for the fact that getting a fix was the only thing they had to worry about. Of course their lives fell through one hell of a rabbit hole, and many of them ended up going to a rehabilitation center to "return" back to themselves. From a moral standpoint, I believe that every person who is involved with drugs has a choice to either continue, or quit. Miles Davis, after being a heroin addict for years, simply quit cold turkey in a week because he still maintained his will and liberty. Unfortunately, one's liberty seems to transform when one is hooked on a drug. Your will tries to warn you, your brain keeps telling you to will to take more of a substance. Isn't it ironic that it is your will that tells you to poison yourself, and nothing more? So in a way, no one has lost their freedom. They've simply lost sight of a "normal" addictive-free freedom looks like.
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with Chris on this one. Although addicts may have a warped sense of reality or priorities, they still maintain (when not high/drunk/etc) the consciousness and free will that which identifies them as humans rather than an animal searching after nothing but satisfying its basest desires. I don't think their addiction makes them any less free, as the freedom still presents itself every single time the user is about to inject themselves with heroin (the example from the movie), it is just harder and harder for the addict to recognize it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with both the comments above. Drug addicts still have their free will, which thus shows that they are human beings. However, Matt's claim that " I don't think their addiction makes them any less free," is curious. Although they are free and have free will, do their addictions control them? Chris states, "every person who is involved with drugs has a choice to continue or quit." Like Chris explains, I do not think it is that simple... I think some addicts would claim that the drugs sometimes control their mental states because their body craves more drugs. In a sense, for addicts, their body is challenging their mental free will.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting about this suggestion is that while a drug addict's condition makes it harder to use their will, the decision and physical act of administering the drug is also a result of an operative free will. So, even though the downward spiral of drug addiction appears helpless, each time they use the drug is an example of free will.
ReplyDeleteEven if the addict descends to the point where there are ruled by addiction and not their own will, then the all early instances of them using the drug were an act of free will in which they freely took the chance that their actions might destroy their free will.