The Man of Virtues Has a Vice (Bill Bennett gambles)

Newsweek ^ | 1/2/03 | Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green

[CMClay]

Noooo, we have not "lost it".
When you preach morals & virtues,
you set yourself up "big time" when you don't practise them.
For me it's his lack of moderation,
why not play the .25 cent slots for fun?
Losing hundreds of thousands a year is not moderation.

But the point is moot with me anyway, I had lost respect for him previously, when I found out he smokes 4 packs a day, and is a borderline alcoholic.

[zoyd]

If gambling is inherently immoral, then the issue of legality is moot.

I wish more people understood this.

[bacchys]

>"And, in this instance, it's had the effect of turning Bennett-liking, moralistic folk into instant libertarians, arguing for personal freedom and the ability to have a vice so long as 'it doesn't hurt anyone'. I just find that ironic."


I don't know if it's ironic, but it's amazing what people will tolerate in fellow-travellers...

[zoyd]

Weak argument.......apples and oranges

Huh? They're fruit. So what? Just because you don't have a good answer to the question doesn't make it 'apples and oranges'. We're talking, EXPLICITLY, about VICE. I ask a question about VICE. Come on...

[Stone Mountain]

Weak argument.......apples and oranges

Not in this case. The justification for Bennett's gambling is that he isn't causing harm to others. This same justification can be used for other vices that he rails against. Same argument, different vices.

[Stone Mountain]

While it is against the law it is immoral to do drugs.

The article mentions that Bennett plays in a regular poker game in Washington with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and lawyer Robert Bork. Given that gambling is illegal in Washington, if they play for money, are they all being immoral?

[Ichneumon]

A few years back a friend of mine made up a plaque of my saying "Anythng done in moderation shows a lack of interest' and he mailed it to me. It hangs on my bedroom wall and I see it each morning.

Way back in college I had clipped a "Hagar the Horrible" comic strip (this was back when it was still funny...) and had it on my bulletin board forever. I wish I had saved it. It went as follows:

Panel 1: Hagar and Lucky Eddie are sitting in a pub quaffing steins of ale. A monk wanders by and says, "Remember, brother Hagar, everything in moderation!"

Panel 2: Lucky Eddie turns to Hagar and asks, "Is moderation good, Hagar?"

Panel 3: Hagar responds, while lifting his stein again, "If you don't overdo it."

[optik_b]

"Also, gambling is legal in more than half the states, with several more states entering into the foray such as New York, Mass, Ohio, etc. "

It's a dumb short term fix for a state's budget woes.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

This same justification can be used for other vices that he rails against. Same argument, different vices.

Maybe in your world, but not mine.

I have no problem associating with a person that gambles recreationally. I would never keep company with a drugger or a hooker.

You high and mightys are a hoot.

[zarf]

Stay out the bedrooms. ....stay out the bedrooms!!

[SuziQ]

There is a "William Bennett" who has been a figure in the gambling industry in Vegas since the 1960's.

Hmmm. YOu reckon Jonathan Alter, in his zeal to 'get something' on William Bennett picked up info about the WRONG ONE? That would be just TOO sweet!

[sinkspur]

I'm not picking a fight -- I honestly think our defs of 'vice' differ.

Yes, I think so. "Vice" to me is something immoral, and neither gambling, nor smoking nor drinking is immoral, unless done to excess. Then it becomes a vice.

Prostitution degrades women, so it is always a vice, as is anything that harms another person.

[Stone Mountain]

Maybe in your world, but not mine. I have no problem associating with a person that gambles recreationally. I would never keep company with a drugger or a hooker.

I see you are missing the point. The point is not whether or not you would hang out with them. The point is that we are discussing the reasons you are using as justification to do so. I was pointing out that the same arguments can be used for those different vices. Whether or not you agree that the vices are morally equivalent is irrelevent to that point.

You high and mightys are a hoot.

So right after you mention that you are too high and mighty to hang out with druggers and hookers, how is it you accuse me of being high and mighty? Incidentally, I can think of at least one person that many people (maybe even you) consider a role model that used to hang out with hookers...

[AndyJackson]

Well for one thing there's the willful violation of the law, right or wrong laws are the written rules of our society and willful violation of them shows a disrepect for our society and weakens the ties of society by helping to create a society full of secrets and distrust. Then there's the black market economy that feeds it, on the profit chain of drugs there is always a murderer eventually, there aren't good people involved in the black market and knowingly creating a living for bad people is clearly not moral behavior.

This is the best argument I have ever heard for why a government that wants the respect of the people must make sure that its laws are just and reasonable.

[wideminded]

Trying to achieve money by chance is a very immoral activity.

Please elaborate.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Whether or not you agree that the vices are morally equivalent is irrelevent to that point.

Wrong premise. You begin by calling it a vice. I disagree.

Is vacationing a vice? Is going to the movies a vice? Is buying a newer and better vehicle before necessary a vice?

You know the answer is "no". All of the above are choices people make for pleasure and it takes money.

Unless a person is depriving his/her family or neglecting responsibilities, gambling is no different than any other form of entertainment.

[Political Junkie Too]

Fine. Then lets stop all the state lotteries, too. Does Bennet buy lottery tickets?

At least he hasn't been blackmailed by a prostitute like the Democrat B.B.

-PJ

[wideminded]

Agree with everything you say about Bennett. I even bought his book and read some of it to my son when he was young. My son is planning to go to seminary so maybe it had an effect. But Bennett is just too pompous to take. Anyone who sets himself up as an expert on morality without being equally self-critical is headed for a fall.

[Scenic Sounds]

The justification for Bennett's gambling is that he isn't causing harm to others.

Good point.

So, who do you like in the Kentucky Derby tomorrow?

[Stone Mountain]

Unless a person is depriving his/her family or neglecting responsibilities, gambling is no different than any other form of entertainment.

This is the point. One can also say that "Unless a person is depriving his/her family or neglecting responsibilities, smoking marijuana is no different than any other form of entertainment." It is the same argument. If you have a distinction that shows smoking marijuana is ALWAYS a vice but that gambling is only SOMETIMES a vice, then you should make that argument. Right now, your argument, when applied to marijuana, implies that smoking weed is only a vice when depriving his/her family or neglecting responsibility.