Yeah, that makes no damn sense. You are getting something out of something, the money you risked. Risking money can be an immoral thing to do if it jeopardizes your family, leads to bad things, etc. But if you have money to spend and you choose to risk it on gambling, more power to you.
X-Runner wrote:
The issue with gambling is that in most cases the rewards do not match the risks for the gambler.
If you play roulette and bet one dollar you have less than a 50% chance of winning a dollar.
All odds favor the house in casinos. Over time, the more you play, the more you lose.
This is fine if you expect to lose and are entertained by the process.
This is not fine if you actually intend to risk something with expectations of proportionate winnings.
Are casinos providing a service for their profits?
Sure, entertainment. Many losers may disagree that they were enternained, though.
Same thing with the lottery but worse.
The awards sound great but the odds are terrible and not at all in line with the payout. And they either take 25 years to pay you or pay a fraction of the advertised award.
Investing is different. The risks are proportional to the rewards and more often than not wind up with a gain.
The immorality of gambling really isn't on the gambler but the gamer.
Those selling false hope of unearned riches where the games are rigged to line their pockets.
Casinos, lotteries, etc.
This explains why gambling is stupid more than why it is immoral. All involved know exactly what they are getting themselves into. A gambler couldn't possibly fail to realize that the games are rigged in the house's favor because the house would not exist as a business if it didn't take in more money than it gave out. One glance at a place like Caesar's Palace provides any mentally competent individual with all of the evidence necessary to realize that a whole lot of people are entering the building with full pockets and leaving with empty ones.
Clearly the people who gamble get something out of it. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. You and I may think that it's stupid, but the people who are doing it must believe that the expected earnings plus the cash value of whatever joy they're getting out of the process is greater than the cost incurred. It's a voluntary transaction, so it wouldn't happen if BOTH sides didn't benefit from it.
Interesting thread. I go to the casino one to two times a month and play blackjack. I don't consider myself immoral.
Pareto Move wrote:
Clearly the people who gamble get something out of it. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. You and I may think that it's stupid, but the people who are doing it must believe that the expected earnings plus the cash value of whatever joy they're getting out of the process is greater than the cost incurred. It's a voluntary transaction, so it wouldn't happen if BOTH sides didn't benefit from it.
Take the above and replace "gamble" with "smoke crack".
GUH wrote:
My belief is that gambling (in the sense of lottery, a game of poker or luck etc...) is immoral because:
1. Say you win- you get a million dollars for predicting the correct sum of two dice many times- great, but did you earn those $1 million? In my firm belief, wealth must be earned legitimately via hard work, intelligent planning etc... etc..., not by some random game of cards or something as petty.
2. Many become addicted to gambling, and people have gone broke from this habit. Even multi-millionaires can lose their entire fortunes from this.
Gambling is an ill to society, and I would suggest never approaching it at all.
1. So inheritances or gifts are immoral too.
2. I am an adult. It's my choice.
A many of life's lessons can be learned through gambling... Just ask Kenny Rogers...
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done
X-Runner wrote:
Take the above and replace "gamble" with "smoke crack".
The statement still holds true when you make the suggested substitution. The problem with drugs is not their impact on the addict, who as stated is choosing to do the drug because he feels that he is made better off through the transaction.
The problem with drugs is that drug users harm others as a result of the drug use. gamblers don't often rob convenience stores for money to throw into the slots.
Pareto Move wrote:
The statement still holds true when you make the suggested substitution. The problem with drugs is not their impact on the addict, who as stated is choosing to do the drug because he feels that he is made better off through the transaction.
The problem with drugs is that drug users harm others as a result of the drug use. gamblers don't often rob convenience stores for money to throw into the slots.
Come on Pareto, don't back down off of your rational choice theory model now! Doing blow or weed or drinking, are all choices that the chooser derives a benefit from and are not immoral in themselves. Robbing is immoral because society cannot function without regulated property rights. I suspect some gamblers do rob convenience stores and I personally know several crack addicts that would never do such a thing.
deraylicious wrote:
Come on Pareto, don't back down off of your rational choice theory model now! Doing blow or weed or drinking, are all choices that the chooser derives a benefit from and are not immoral in themselves. Robbing is immoral because society cannot function without regulated property rights. I suspect some gamblers do rob convenience stores and I personally know several crack addicts that would never do such a thing.
Very true. The negative externalities are not an argument for the immorality of drug use, but rather the justification for illegalizing drugs. This is not a justification that I agree with, though.
GUH wrote:
My belief is that gambling (in the sense of lottery, a game of poker or luck etc...) is immoral because:
Poker is not gambling. [Colorado vs Raley] in 2009 ruled that Poker is in fact a game of skill. A similar decision was reached by a Pennsylvania court a few months later.
Actually gamblers often do unsavory things to support their gambling habbit or to pay pay back their bookie or to gamble again in hopes of paying back their bookie.
Now replace "gamble" with "purchase child porn" and see how the statement still holds up.
X-Runner wrote:
Actually gamblers often do unsavory things to support their gambling habbit or to pay pay back their bookie or to gamble again in hopes of paying back their bookie.
Now replace "gamble" with "purchase child porn" and see how the statement still holds up.
You can replace "gamble" with any other voluntary expenditure you like and it will hold true. All the statement that you quoted really said is that people will only enter into a voluntary contract if the believe that they will be better off as a result. This is true regardless of the subject of the contract.
As far as people doing unsavory things to support habits, the moral issue is attached to the savory thing, not to the habit. I don't much care if someone does crack if they don't harm anyone or put anyone else at risk as a result. I don't much care if people gamble if they don't harm others.
I don't disagree with what you are saying.
I don't care much if people make a fair exchange if no one is hurt.
My point was to answer the question "Why is gambling immoral" and gave reasons why it could be looked at that way.
Morality is a gray area that society comes to a concensus on but is also determined individually.
When I take this to purchasing child porn that changes things.
Purchasing child porn doesn't hurt anyone.
Watching it doesn't hurt anyone.
But if there was not a market for it than that eliminates the distribution of it and will eliminate the hurtful act of producing that for money.
Most would agree that purchasing child porn is immoral yet it works with your statement of voluntary expenditure.
So voluntary gambling isn't necessarily moral.
X-Runner wrote:
When I take this to purchasing child porn that changes things.
Purchasing child porn doesn't hurt anyone.
Watching it doesn't hurt anyone.
But if there was not a market for it than that eliminates the distribution of it and will eliminate the hurtful act of producing that for money.
Most would agree that purchasing child porn is immoral yet it works with your statement of voluntary expenditure.
No. My entire argument was in response to your argument that gambling is wrong because it hurts the end user of the product. Purchasing child porn is considered to be immoral for an entirely different reason, so the same argument that does adequately refute your argument regarding gambling does not apply to child porn.
If the gambler isn't an addict and TRULY views gambling as entertainment, then I believe it's moral. They are paying $XX for entertainment, just like someone would pay $XX to go to a movie. Of course, many don't view gambling just as entertainment. Personally, I go to the casino a few times a year and I really enjoy it. I took a work trip to Vegas in January and budgeted $200 for gaming. I was prepared to lose it all, and I did, but I had a very fun time doing it (spread over four days).
I find it ironic that we are encouraged to buy insurance / warranties but discouraged from gambling.
You people do realize the expected value of spending money on insurances is FAR F***ING LESS than even the worst forms of gambling, right?
I don't see it as illmoral though I do find casinos to be a horrid rip off and not fun. I have played lotto probably a dozen times over the course of my life (I am in my 30s) and I have been to a casino once. On my wife's 29th birthday we went to a casino. We quickly lost $20, decided that it was stupid, and left. I simply don't see how it could be considered fun. We lost our money in about 15 minutes are the first thing that came to mind was, "we should have spent that money on lunch!"
Can somebody here explain to me why they think casinos are fun. I simply can't see it.
I suspect that an overtly high percentage of the customers really think that somehow they will hit it big or comeout ahead. I think that they all lie to themselves about it a bit to.
Rak wrote:
I find it ironic that we are encouraged to buy insurance / warranties but discouraged from gambling.
You people do realize the expected value of spending money on insurances is FAR F***ING LESS than even the worst forms of gambling, right?
Wow that is crazy! Insurance companies have it pretty nice. I suspect that due to the marginal utility of money, a catastrophic loss is a lot worse than an equivalent windfall gain, I wonder how much that accounts for people's relative willingness to buy insurance vs. their willingness to gamble.
I wanted to completely giva up gambling because I've been wasting tons of money but I ended up just playing free slots on https://free-slots.games/ instead of what I did before which turned out to be fine.
I played poker for a living. Call it immoral all you want, but what's the reasoning behind it? What makes gambling any more immoral than something else?