Resisting inability

This paper compares two stories about why addiction can mitigate blame. One, the strong urges story, says that the key point is that addictive urges are very strong. The other, the inability story, says that the key point is that people with addiction are unable to refrain from pursuing the things they are addicted to. Part of what is at issue is whether and in what way the two stories are in competition. I defend the strong urges story, and argue that it has an explanatory advantage over the inability story. The two stories agree on what the basis of mitigation in addiction is, but the strong urges story goes deeper than the inability story. I also offer a suggestion about why, despite this, the strong urges story can seem inadequate, and the inability story can seem like the solution.