Gambling: Moral or Immoral?

The recent question of legalized gambling in Ohio,brought to memory an editorial I wrote in 1957. I hope you find it interesting.....

Gamblers play just as lovers make love and alcoholics drink – blindly and of necessity, under domination of an irresistible force. There are beings vowed to play, as there are being vowed to love. I wonder who invented this story of the two sailors who were so possessed by the lust of gambling. They were shipwrecked and only escaped a watery grave, after experiencing the most appalling vicissitudes, by climbing on the back of a whale. The instant they were installed there, they lugged out of their pockets dice and dice boxes and settled themselves down to play. The story is truer than truth. Every gambler is like those sailors. And in every deed there is something in play that does terribly stir the fibers of daring hearts. Is it an insignificant delight to tempt fortune? Is it a pleasure devoid of intoxications to taste in one second, months, years, a whole lifetime of fear and hopes?

On the question of gambling, opinions are divided. Some class it among the vices, others among the amusements. For some it is a thing which conscience can never sanction; for others, it is just a matter of taste – legitimate enough if you happen to like that kind of thing.

R. C. Mortimer, the author of Personal Ethics, states, “Gambling to such an extent is to make it one’s sole and staple diet is agreed by all to be an evil, and the existence of this admittedly ‘evil’ gambling has raised the question whether the practice in itself is inherently and necessarily ‘evil,’ or whether the ‘evil’ we deplore is simply regrettable use of an otherwise harmless amusement.”

He further states, “There are two main grounds on which it is held that any gamble must be immoral. First, it is immoral to make the ownership of property dependent on chance; and second, it is immoral to get something for which one gives nothing in return.”

Mr. Mortimer here makes a blaring contradiction to his statement, that gambling is immoral because the gambler gets something for nothing. “It is argued that the gambler gets something for nothing and that must be wrong. Without going into the question of whether the principle here is right and if it is right, it would seem at first sight to throw doubt on the legitimacy of receiving a gift. It is enough to say that in fact the gambler does not get something for nothing. In the gambling contract certain rights are mutually conferred. In the event of one set of circumstances, A gives B the right to claim from him a sum of money. In the event of certain other circumstances, B gives A a similar tight. It cannot be maintained that this conferring of a right is nothing; it is a definite contribution, in virtue of which the gambler earns – becomes entitled to – his winnings” (R. C. Mortimer, Gambling, Ch. 6, p. 138, Personal Ethics).

Aristotle was also against gambling. (Giralamo Cardano, in his book Cardano, tells why gambling was condemned by Aristotle.) “But when we come to speak of the play itself and of actual gambling, I do not hold anyone blameless in this matter except those who play for money because of great grief of mind; and gambling, is disgraceful because a man makes gain from his friend against that friend’s will. For the case stands thus, gain from those who are both willing and aware is best; next best is gain from those who are aware and unwilling. To the first class belongs lawyers and doctors, and to the second merchants. The third kind is gain from those who, being aware but unwilling, are one’s friends, as in gambling. The fourth kind is gain from those who are unwilling and unaware as in gain by trickery. The firth kind is gain from those who are unwilling and aware and not one’s friends, as in robbery.”

Aristotle gives another reason elsewhere when he says, “Gamblers, thieves, and robbers ply a sordid trade for they traffic in base gain, in fact they do everything for the sake of gain and thereby incur reproach. But thieves at least undergo great risks for their spoils, while gamblers gain from their friends to whom they ought rather to give. So both classes of men whose aim is to make gain where they ought not, traffic in base gain, and all such acquisitive acts are sordid. Moreover, a confirmed gambler is a perjurer and a blasphemer, and is at the same time prodigal and greedy; and if not so already by nature, he soon becomes irascible; he cherishes vain hopes in his idleness and he corrupts the youth.” It sounds as if some of Aristotle’s friends took the great scholar to the cleaners. “There have been philosophers who have despised riches when they could not get at them; and some, who have advised the world to despise them, while they have been hoarding them. (Herbert Marx, Jr., Gambling in America).

One of the arguments against gambling is that it often leads to financial ruin. This may be very true in a few isolated cases, but the figures do not bear the argument out. The present personal expenditure on gambling is something near $196M annually; it is on this basis a comparatively unimportant item. It represents an average annual expenditure of about $5.60 per head, by the adult population. It is, however, pointed out that not all families take part in gambling, as such. Taking 15 million as the number of people who gamble regularly, then the average expenditure is still only something around $20 per person. “The present personal expenditure of gambling represents not more than one percent of total personal expenditures, and gambling at present, absorbs about .5 percent of the national resources. Although significant, this is by no means important. (Geoffrey Crowther, The Economists). The cost of gambling as an amusement is infinitively small compared to the cost of almost any other amusement. The price for gambling is $196M per year; whereas, the cost of tobacco is $3,686 billion and that expended for liquor alone is $4,739 billion – RETAIL. If it is just a question of wasting one’s money that gambling is considered to be immoral, then should not tobacco and liquor be immoral also? Yet, the same people who condemn gambling are the very ones who patronize the local “pubs” and smoke shops (above figures taken from World Almanac, 1955).

James Hayden Tufts in his book America’s Social Morality, agrees to a certain extent with Mr. Mortimer and Aristotle. He agrees to only the overindulgence theory of gambling and not to any other aspect. “Gambling, betting, taking a chance on the outcome of a race, the turn of a card, a rise in stocks, or a prize in a lottery are in several respects the least degrading of the vices. The gambler is indeed liable to be caught in a loss which may tempt him to take money from his employer’s cash drawer, or stake the savings which are sorely needed by his family.” At this point everyone concerned with the subject is in agreement. But Mr. Tufts goes on to state that he is very much opposed to the previous theory of Mortimer, that “If other than pecuniary aspects are considered, gambling has something to say for itself. It is akin to intellectual activity rather than to positive and sensuous pleasure. It does not cause a man to make a public show of himself in a disgusting condition as drinking often does, nor driving of motor cars, and similar effects of intemperance. It does not abuse and sensualize what ought to be a peculiarly intimate and affectionate relationship to another human being as does prostitution. And if convivial banquet and bouquet of choice wines have been companions of song and have called out the praises of poets, betting has had its associations with races and athletic contests, which have likewise had their minstrelsy. Horse racing has been called the “sport of kings,” and horse racing without gambling has been declared “a dry and tedious sport.” The undergraduate who “backs’ his college team, and the political sport who “backs” his party’s candidate in the odds of election wagers feels himself moved, not so much by sordid motives as by loyalty and patriotism.”

I do not go so far as to entirely agree with Mr. Tufts, for I feel that men gamble not only through loyalty and patriotism, but very definitely for pecuiniary benefits. I believe that it is in man’s very instinct to gamble. “The great mass of human beings feel the charm of gambling, and the more commonplace the individual, the more strongly is he attracted by the fascination of chance. Our acts are guided by the desire of obtaining the maximum of pleasure with a minimum of pain and effort, and you cannot obtain this better than by gambling. Life is short; the future is uncertain. If fortune is to be ours, should we not prepare the way so that it may come swiftly? And what better way that that of gambling? If we are towin, let it be soon and once and for all! Our life is nothing more than a game of chance. We are gamblers all, even those of us who have never touched a card. Professions, business, and love itself are pure gambles, pure luck, a matter of chance, cleverness, and intelligence may cause our life games to turn out favorably, but chance still retains its hold on us, and the luck of an individual is what is more important – a man never has become rich or celebrated merely on his own merits” (Vicente, Blasco Ibanez, The Enemies of Women)

Some scholars say that not only is gambling immoral, but that it is also a waste of time, by people who are only stupid or ignorant. Here again, I cannot agree. For the people who say that only the stupid can play cards err, they do not know what decision, what quickness of apprehension, what judgment, what knowledge of character are required to play a different hand perfectly.

“The good card player trusts his intuition as implicitly as Monsieur Bergson, but he calls it a hunch the brilliant card player has agift as specific as the poet’s; he too is born, not made. The student of human nature can find endless matter for observation in the behavior of his fellow card players. Meanness and generosity, prudence and audacity, courage and timidity, weakness and strength – all these men show at the game table according to their natures. The game table is a very good school for the study of mankind” (Somerset Maugham, Introduction to Traveller’s Library).

It was, I think, Alexander the Great, who said that so long as his soldiers were gamblers, he felt secure against mutiny. If then a man likes to find his amusement in gambling, he is as much entitled to spend his money on it as he is on movies or football game. The fact that he may spend too much money is now more a condemnation of the one than it is of the other.

I have pointed out a few examples of thinking from both main schools of thought – the moral and the immoral. New, let us look at the practical justification of gambling.

“In general, a risk is judged to be necessary or justifiable, (1) when every effort has been made by the reason to minimize the extent of the unknown. When the advantage hoped for is commensurate with the loss ricked (i.e., it would be unjustifiable to risk one’s life to save a sparrow, but justifiable to risk it to save a child), and (3) when the probability of a favorable outcome is greater than the probability of an unfavorable one. If this last condition is not fulfilled, we are apt to call it not a risk but a danger or at any rate a grave risk. A grave risk is never justifiable except where the second condition is amply fulfilled, i.e., where what we stand to gain is of pressing and supreme importance (R. C. Mortimer, Personal Ethics).

Let me summarize to this point, I have presented views, pro and con, on the question of gambling, and have also stated the justification of it. Now, let us assume that gambling is a moral necessity and has a definite place on the human scene.

Since gambling is increasingly becoming the most popular national amusement, there is coming into light the idea of chance as something that can be treated numerically. For a long time men did not realize that they had the power to do so. At the time when the Renaissance was drawing to a close, a new curiosity about nature was sweeping the world. It extended even to the gamblers. A group of them, unable to answer their own questions about the fall of the dice and other gaming problems, went to some of the leading scientists. One was Galileo who found these gaming problems worth careful study. Down through the years the problems of gambling have fascinated every major scientist and mathematician. The sum total of their efforts might well be entitled the Theories of Probabilities. The Theories of Probabilities are now involved in every phase of existence. They include everything from a business proposition to a sweepstakes ticket.

This is as much as I want to say about the Theories of Probabilities, for it is far too deep and intense to delve any farther into it. One would have to be a mathematician to explain let alone comprehend the various ramifications of this vast subject.

In the final analysis, it would seem that gambling, just as in anything, if taken in the right quantity, in the right place, and at the right time should be considered completely moral. Gambling is a universal phenomenon. It occurs among people of all ages and cultures. Can we suppress the activities of so large a mass? I say not. As long as there are two or more people in a given place, there will be gambling, moral or immoral.

Well, one could win in lottery without winning - it is a matter of attitude. Once in the late 80s there was a 100+mil jackpot in Pennsylvania. One couldn't buy a newspaper at a newsstand for the ticket lines. So, four of us (three postdocs and me, a grad student) bought one ticket. And for a whole week until the drawing we were addressing one another "my fellow millionaires". One of us did not have a quarter and wanted to chip in 30 cents - the rest immediately ganged up on him for "disgusting behavior" and "unspeakable greed". So on balance I'd say that each of us got more fun out of it than 25 cents' worth.

Life is a gamble. The stockmarket is a gamble. Orders from a drive thru window are a gamble. Running for political office is a gamble. Planning a picnic is a gamble. Arriving safely to work each day is a gamble. Me spelling correctly without spell check is a gamble.

This question is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

The fact that games of chance played for monetary profit/loss is an un-insurable transfer of cash IS the ONLY problem worth addressing. The nanny state is all that's left to bail out the losers and the rightous among us always use the wrong argument to try to prevent it.

As long as people have the ability to choose, gambling will continue.

A large percentage of the people with gambling problems got that way by gambling illegally.When the government makes gambling illegal it only punishes the law abiding citizen who enjoys it.The problem gambler will find a way to gamble whether it's legal or not.We live in a free country where we should have the choice of whether we want to gamble or not.How could a state outlaw gambling and then run a money making scam like the lottery?Besides,I won $1500 at the casino last Saturday night and I didn't see anything wrong with it.

I distinguish between forms of gambling in which the player has some control--e.g. poker--and those which depend purely on chance--roulette. A good poker player can win over the long run. Included in the latter is all forms of sports betting because the bettor himself has no control, even though it would be a stretch to say the outcome was pure chance. I used to work with compulsive gamblers in a treatment program, and I can verify that the sports bettors(including the horses) were the most degenerate narcissists I had ever met en masse. They actually believed that the more they bet, the faster their horse would run.

One thing they all agreed on, however: gamblers die broke.

This article is about whether gambling is immoral and touches briefly on if it should be illegal.

I don't feel like debating anyone on legality right now, but I will express my reason for saying it is immoral:

It is an activity which requires someone to lose financially.

We all "gamble" every day. We take risks when we get on the road. We take risks when we eat food prepared by strangers. When people engage in gaming for money "gambling" they are doing something selfish.

The same cannot be said of "playing the stock market" generally. Because it is feasible that everyone can win. While gambling may have some entertainment value, it remains unproductive and takes more from society than it gives back.

Some here are saying that gambling is foolish. Well yes, if you are not the house simple math illustrates that a percentage of what you gamble will be lost on average. Contrary to the author's position, the math is not that complex. Casinos want customers to believe in myths like luck, but they base their payouts on the cold, hard facts of math.

I would like to know why moderators consider this opinion piece "news", but when I post current information just published it is deemed general interest. It happens often. What are the odds on that?

The stock market is a gamble. Is that moral while gambling in Vegas or an Indian casino is immoral?

I just don't see a whole lot of difference. Besides, it's my money. I can do with it whatever I want and I will suffer whatever consequences come around.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.