Alcoholism is a moral failing, and the struggle and punishment are real, and come not only from outside, but also from within.

One can try to rationally argue their way out of alcoholism being a moral failing, but then one notices that in a similar way they can “whitewash” any other moral failing, and the words lose their meaning completely.

Yet people use these words to mean something, and abuse of alcohol falls under that meaning, and every society in existence has always cautioned against and condemned it.

If it is a moral failing, how can a pill resolve it? Does the pill put morals back in the user? While I agree that alcohol abuse is bad (and might make people do bad things, and hurts people around them etc), I'm not sure if the moral argument adds anything to the discussion

> If it is a moral failing, how can a pill resolve it?

It doesn't. If thievery is a moral failing, how can chopping off thief's hands resolve it? It does resolve further thievery, but doesn't resolve the moral failing of it.

I'm not sure I understand your point, maybe we're talking at cross purposes? In the case of chopping off a thief's hand I see the _desire_ to steal as the moral failing. Preventing the physical theft in that case doesn't resolve the moral failing. In the alcohol case, (some) people who take naltrexone completely lose the desire to drink, so the internal _desire_ (or 'moral failing') has resolved, rather than just the symptom of drinking.

But we may be using different definitions of moral failing

I probably need to reconsider my assumptions, you’re right. I thought that taking naltrexone only manages addiction for as long as it’s being taken, and after it’s stopped the desire returns.

If it just cures the bad habit without the mental work, then probably it would be more appropriate to view it as a remedy for a disease rather than a temporary band-aid for people who are unwilling to put in the work.