I would say gambling in itself isnt immoral. The problem is that a small % of people get addicted and end up spending all their money and more on betting. And that the industry makes almost all their profits on those that are addicted.
The addicts and lonely line up waiting for these places to open, they spend everything they've got and the gambling places encourage it by providing them with free coffee, snacks and in some cases dinner.
No, gambling isn't immoral, but praying on the addicts, the mentally challenge and the lonely is. If you can't stay in business without exploiting the weak, you have no right to exist. The only negative consequence I see from banning gambling is the potential dangers of a black market.
> Although the bible does not condemn gambling, instead the desire to get rich is called to account numerous times in the New Testament.
And the Catholic's problem with it is the competition:
> Some parish pastors have also opposed casinos for the additional reason that they would take customers away from church bingo and annual festivals where games such as blackjack, roulette, craps, and poker are used for fundraising.
The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling, so long as it is fair, all bettors have a reasonable chance of winning, there is no fraud involved, and the parties involved do not have actual knowledge of the outcome of the bet (unless they have disclosed this knowledge),[33] and as long as the following conditions are met: the gambler can afford to lose the bet, and stops when the limit is reached, and the motivation is entertainment and not personal gain leading to the "love of money"[34] or making a living.
In general, Catholic bishops have opposed casino gambling on the grounds that it too often tempts people into problem gambling or addiction, and has particularly negative effects on poor people; they sometimes also cite secondary effects such as increases in loan sharking, prostitution, corruption, and general public immorality
No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy with the Catholic view.
You are adding to what I pointing out about the wiki and Christianity generally not having a problem with gambling itself: "The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling" -- again no moral issue with gambling itself. Your source to back up your argument is simply not what you made it out to be.
I don’t think that is hypocritical, more just nuanced. Church bingos aren’t putting people into poverty.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06375b.htm
Your critique of my initial comment seems to be hinging on the single phrase of gambling itself. I just meant the commonly used sense of the word, today, which IMO implies the aspects that the Catholics label as negative. (I.e. most people don’t call bingo a gambling activity.)
But sure, Catholicism has a nuanced view and it’s inaccurate to say they are against gambling in itself.
> Sure, we could get into a discussion on the morality of gambling itself, but if we look at pretty much every global ethical tradition (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.) it is frowned upon strongly.
Yes, that was how it reads to me, that gambling itself is frowned on; based on the post that reply was for where they stated "I would say gambling in itself isnt immoral." and that the problem is addiction and money. And I also agree with that. But gambling is gambling and while no part of it is immoral to me (I hold higher standards for that word), there are major issues with it due to greed.
Which is what your souce is saying Christians have a problem with, not it being widespread or happening at all -- simply the trying to get rich, the addiction to money -- thats the sin. Not gambling, gambling is fine; it's when it turn into a money issue, then there is a problem. And that can happen at your local bingo parlour or Macau, or Vegas or the back-room of a gas station or your buddy's poker game. The Christian bible/church have an issue when greed happens, not gambling (widespread or not).
What does the type of gambling matter? If we focus on the core issues: greed and money problems -- over trying to "protect" [my emphasis] others from the bad gambling -- we end up helping them with adjacent greed/money problems. Labeling outside things as the problem is the problem. Help the people learn to master the inner compulsion towards these things (and other skills to help pull themselves out of dire situations); the rest is just trying to find an enemy to blame because helping others in a real way is hard.
Greed (in a generous def of the word, as in the wanting/desire of as much of the thing as possible [money in this case] quickly and/or easily despite the cost) is a root cause of many of the issues people create for themselves with gambling.
Though this is conflating correlation for causation. As you note yourself in GP, dire social conditions is what makes people see gambling (or risk-taking more generally) as one of the only viable options to get out.
In this case, I can agree bad social conditions cause gambling, but I don't think the data supports the opposite, at least not more than many other things we take for granted, such as
- alcohol,
- beauty/fashion industries,
- social media,
etc.
Do you deny that those observers can correctly identify the substance or the activity that the addict is addicted to?
Do you deny that addiction is quite deleterious both to the addict and to the people with whom the addict is in some kind of relationship?
Many news stories claim that many Americans (young men particularly) are getting addicted to online sports betting. Do you dispute the accuracy of those news stories?
If so, can you guess as to the motivation for publishing these inaccurate news stories? Often a campaign to mislead the public is done because some group would gain something quite valuable if the campaign is successful. What would any group have to gain (aside from a slightly healthier country) from a successful campaign to make online sports betting illegal?
We need to help these people, but we do not help them by driving their vices underground.
The unemployment rate in the US is 4.3%.
Before you say anything, the U-6 rate is 8.1%.
ETA: Maybe most conservatively, let's use only the % uniquely included in U-6 and excluded in standard, or 14.4 million people. I'll claim these 14m people are the "gatekept from full employment" in that they don't qualify as narrowly unemployed unless you include "all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons"(1)
Same question. 14m people who are being excluded from labor, are they not free to attempt to generate income via means other than labor, lest they suffer the judgement of Abraham?
In other words, is Abraham hiring? If not, are the people he refuses to employ meant to accept serfdom to preserve their soul?
This makes no sense. Is it really your claim that 14 million people are kept from working? Do you know what the long term unemployment rate is in the US?
Am I reading correct that you are saying that in (at least) the Christian religion it is okay to provide gambling services?
Further supporting that the religion does not claim it immoral?
*note: it's stated as such, yet seems to have been ignored, in the linked wiki source above -- maybe your wording, if I understand it correctly, would be suitable for updating the wiki to make it more clear/understood that gambling is not immoral to those who adhere to the Christian bible
In drug rehabilitation, the phrase is no longer used. Instead people have a bingo card of disease, conditions and syndromes to go with addiction. Once people have been pigeon-holed in a dozen ways then the die is cast, these conditions are no longer imaginary, you have to hold yourself up in life because X, Y and Z prohibit you from even giving it a go.
Regarding the article, I detest organised gambling, however, relatively few chronic gamblers end up homeless and destitute. You need a good dose of class A drugs and a smorgasbord of childhood trauma to guarantee the truly negative outcomes.
I don't object to gambling amongst friends, even if it is on a card game. I might bet someone that they can't beat me on Scrabble, but I would be getting the dopamine hits from laying some massive, high-scoring words on the board to devastate my fellow players, but winning that £10 just ups the stakes and my competitive drive. If I am just betting on a sport (or even a Scrabble game) played by others, then it isn't quite the same.
What does amaze me about modern day gambling is that you know it is rigged. I don't trust an app to honestly flip a coin for me. My version of the app would be 'if heads show tails and vice-versa most of the time'. Yet people pour their life savings and some more into apps that are black boxes with no way of peeking inside to see how it works. The seasoned gambler must know that every game is rigged and that the house always wins, but they still queue up for another spin.
They rank up unpayable debts and their married partners end up being legally obligated to pay half of that even after divorce.
Getting life together after gambling is super hard to impossible. It is literally easier to get back on track as alcoholic, as those have much smaller debts.
And it is easier to avoid keep alcohol out of house then ... cell phone put of house.
I don't think generalisations about ease of giving up alcohol versus ease of giving up sports betting (or other gambling) is an apples to apples comparison.
Games of chance and friendly wagers amongst friends may not, in themselves be immoral or harmful but gambling as an organized business activity is absolutely harmful
I personally don’t see the argument for categorising it as immoral on the basis that’s it’s not useful. The same could be said about plenty of other enjoyable things.
However exploitation is clearly immoral. That’s where I have issue with gambling. Gambling operators don’t get rich thanks to the average users but because addicts give them much more than they should. That’s clearly immoral be it from a casino, a gambling website, or micro transactions in mobile game. Every companies which profit from that should be held accountable including Apple and Google which are clearly complicit.
I do not concur on the dopamine argument. There's no solid evidence for it. The underlying mechanism is probably much more complex. But since we're not discussing a signal path to addiction, it's an unnecessary complication of the argument that instills the belief that there's a medical cure.
Addiction breaks social ties. For example, when an addict starts to struggle to continue to pay for his addiction, he often starts to steal from friends and family members.
The average view on this on HN is quite different from the American average. Personality psychologists have observed that people who do well in software development and entrepreneurship tend to be high in a trait called "openness to experience". Maybe HNers are more tolerant of addictive substances and activities than the American average because addictive substances and activities tend to be interesting experiences.
(I am restricting my universe of discourse here to the US only because it is the country I know best.)
I think the more accurate lens would be that Hacker News likes money.
On the surface at least, it seems like running a gambling or sports betting company would be a dream job. You get to systemically rip off your customers through your house edge, you retain the right to back off skilled players that can bypass your house edge, your expenses go to infrastructure as opposed to creating anything of value, and you get to externalize the wider societal consequences by blaming nebulous mental illness.
"This guy wants to pay me for the privilege of gradually losing money to me, why should I stop him?"
Cocaine also gives one pleasure when taking it, but at some point the enjoyable part is surrounding by suffering.
That would allow us to better regulate it, treat addicts as they should, and end the networks currently profiteering from the flourishing black market and their exploitation of the addicts.
Prohibition just doesn’t work. We have tried dozen of times with various addictive substance from alcohol to tobacco. It’s nearly always a terrible solution.
- Insurance prevents financial catastrophe by aggregating risk, yet it is nothing more than wagering you'll get into trouble.
- Market liquidity is provided by people willing to bet on price developments, which smoothes out fluctuations in availability.
- Large infrastructure projects and charity donations been financed through lotteries -- it's a way to raise money without a guarantee of return.
- If you want to sell something which a single buyer cannot afford, and it is difficult to share, it can be sold through a lottery which lets buyers buy a ticket's expected value rather than the full cost of the thing.
These benefits still exist when unregulated, but of course it seems to work even better under the appropriate regulation.
- Infrastructure is better off paid by taxation. That's much fairer, and more predictable.
- I don't see insurance as gambling. It has a chance element, but that's not enough to qualify something as gambling. You buy security against large losses at a moderate price (*), instead of building up large losses for nothing. It's also a step which you hope doesn't pay out (sickness, fire, theft).
- Selling through lottery is exploitation.
(*) YMMV
You’ve ruled out not just all gambling but all business. The examples the parent comment above you gave are all profit generating for the organizer.
Insurance in particular seems to be a clear societal win and is in fact gambling. You make a (relatively) small wager that pays out nothing if you don’t need it or potentially huge if you do.
Did you choose to get cancer or fake it?
If paying into insurance “earns” the payout, then everyone who pays in and doesn’t take a payout is being stolen from.
> potentially huge if you do.
No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.
Insurance absolutely has a societal benefit. It is also absolutely gambling.
Insurance is hedging. Aka hedging your bets.
You’re trying to argue that it’s not gambling because it’s beneficial. But that’s absurd because you’re trying to define gambling as specifically “bad” in a conversation of whether gambling is bad.
You can’t argue circularly and then gripe about clarifying definitions.
In lieu of re-quoting other parts of the thread, I'll instead ask you to please re-read the arguments people have made, more slowly.
> Some people have constrained the definition of "gambling" such that it only contains things they view as bad
If there is some internally consistent definition that excludes all the “good” stuff without excluding it specifically for being good, no one has shared that so far as I’ve seen.
The arguments about insurance so far have been “but it’s a good thing” and “you aren’t happy when your insurance pays out”. The former is exactly gambling==bad and the latter is just wrong. I could bet that a politician I despise will win and I won’t necessarily be happy that I won. I’ll be more happy that I got a payout than not, exactly the same as insurance. That’s what a hedge is.
Absolutely not the same thing. But even so there is still an interesting insight to be gained from common parlance:
Usually we talk of a bet in a situation where you take an event that is somewhat out of your control and irrelevant for your wellbeing and intentionally and actively make some kind of material outcome for yourself depend on it. In so far speculation at stock markets is „gambly“, you are right about that. And if you have measures in place that hedge the risks of those speculations you might be tempted to very loosely call those your insurance.
If you look however at how the term insurance is typically used you can see a difference there: you insure against risks that are non-avoidable risks of your daily life or business. You do not intentionally and actively enter the cancer-lottery. And you do not actively take measures to win your „health-insurance-bet“ because the outcome is still considered catastrophic, even in case of „winning“ it.
And the way people tend to see things more as insurance vs. bets follows exactly these lines: is it about mitigating a devastating natural risk that is hard or impossible to avoid 100% or is it about something where you actively and intentionally attach your wellbeing to a random event. (We could separate this out in two questions: do you involve yourself actively and intentionally; and: is the outcome that you bet on inherently against your intrinsic interests. But that is a detail that I don‘t think we need to go into)
I think this explains the common parlance quite well: health-insurance: the risk is unavoidable, you do not willfully enter some kind of cancer-lottery on whose outcome you bet. Also you have an intrinsic interest in not „winning“ said „cancer-lottery“. -> no doubt it is insurance.
Legal expenses insurance: risks depend largely on your behaviour but you usually still have an intrinsic interest not having to use it. -> some people might see this as more gambling- or “bet-“ adjacent.
Speculating on one stock and hedging that bet. -> Totally not an insurance. Also not something insurances do. An insurance might be part of your hedge (maybe insurance of freight against loss) but insurers typically do not insure bets. Which makes sense, since part of their business-model is that the customer has an intrinsic interest that the payout case does not occur.
In specific response to your reply, I understand what you’re going for but you’re stretching definitions to meet your goals. The Wikipedia page you cite states clearly that insurance is a common hedge. And in your definition of a bet you state that it is “irrelevant for your wellbeing” as if a boxer wagers on their own fight wouldn’t be betting or gambling.
Your discussion of insurance vs bets is reasonable and I get what you’re going for, but I think the distinction is not as clear as it might seem at first. “I don’t want this payout” feels like a meaningful distinction but that Wikipedia page rears its ugly head and points out Hawking’s what-if-black-holes-aren’t-real bet that he wanted to lose. I wanted the Seahawks to win today. If I had put $50 on the Buccaneers would that have been a bet? Insurance? A hedge?
Regardless, back to my point. Maybe there is some criteria that disambiguates all the “good Things that look like gambling but aren’t” from the “bad things that are clearly gambling” but I haven’t seen it yet. I think it’s all some level of gambling. If I roll through life without health insurance, I’m betting I don’t need it. If I buy the insurance I’m betting that at some point I will, or at least that the odds are good enough that I will that I should hedge.
Hedging is a strategy for reducing risk in gambling (or investment).
Extortion is more fair than voluntary contributions? Maybe on arguments from regression but it's not obvious.
> You buy security against large losses at a moderate price
Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is.
Sure, you made an offsetting gamble when buying the house, but I don't see how you can claim a gamble is no longer a gamble when a partially offsetting gamble exists -- that's just two gambles, and indeed prudent risk management when it comes to big gambling.
Then move to North Korea where there are no taxes.
> Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is.
yeah the big prize of all your personal belongings being destroyed, being semi-homeless for an indefinite period of time, fighting insurance companies to get the full value of your home and all assets (glhf finding out what's secretly not covered or you can't prove you owned), searching for a new home in an inflated market, lost productivity, dead pets, etc.. What a prize! This is something you'd expect a 12 year old to try to argue.
Insurance is not legally classified as gambling for very obvious and practical reasons.