Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice Isn’t Simple. Reply to Pickard

  • Letter
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 07 January 2017

Abstract

Pickard’s contribution reminds me that conceptualizing choice is no simple matter. Pickard sees choice as entirely voluntary, while I argue that choice is only partially voluntary. Choices are based on appraisals of situations, which fluctuate due to external circumstances and internal states such as emotion and mood. Habit itself competes with volition, and all these parameters vary with development. Psychological factors such as delay discounting and especially one's belief in one's agency are critical for volitional choice as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pickard, Hanna. 2017. Responsibility without blame for addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2.

  2. Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.

  3. Heather, Nick. 2017. Q: Is addiction a brain disease or a moral failing? A: Neither. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9289-0.

  4. Libet, Benjamin. 1985. Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 529–539. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00044903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wegner, Daniel M., and James A.K. Erskine. 2003. Voluntary involuntariness: Thought suppression and the regulation of the experience of will. In Consciousness and Cognition 12: 684–694. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00054-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lewis, Marc D. 2015. The biology of desire. Why addiction is not a disease. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Prendergast, Michael, Deborah Podus, John Finney, Lisa Greenwell, and John Roll. 2006. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01581.x.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Satel, Sally L., and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2017. If addiction is not best conceptualized a brain disease, then what kind of disease is it? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9287-2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ainslie, George. 2017. Intertemporal bargaining in habit. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00063.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Developmental Psychology, University of Toronto, 27 King’s College Cir, Toronto, ON, M5S, Canada

    Marc Lewis

Authors
  1. Marc Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, M. Choice Isn’t Simple. Reply to Pickard. Neuroethics 10, 181–183 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9321-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9321-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation