Why is gambling considered "bad"?

[revots33]

I was doing some research into pathlogical gambling and came across this passage (from "Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity, and treatment." by Nancy M. Petry):

[ QUOTE ]
One can also consider gambling from a socioliological perspective. For example, a squirrel might expend energy gathering nuts and storing them in a nest for the winter. These nuts may then become available for consumption during leaner times, when they are of much greater value to the squirrel. However, in expending the energy to gather the nuts and not eating them on the spot, the squirrel is, in essence, risking the possibility that another animal will find and confiscate the stored food or that a natural event, such as a flood or storm, will sweep it away. Similarly, a coyote in the wild must make a decision when it encounters a group of rabbits. It can go after a young bunny, which will be easy to catch and almost ensure a small meal, or it can risk not getting any food at all and chase the larger rabbit, which offers the possibility of a larger, more satiating meal. Thus, all species must make choices that are guided by probabilistic outcomes. The concept of gambling appears to be a basic aspect of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This passage reinforced what I've always thought: life is a risk. Getting in your car and driving to work is a risk. Investing money in the stock market is a risk. Buying a home is a risk.

So why the moral outrage against games of chance? And why do religious groups in general seem to have such a problem with it? It can't simply be that "some people get addicted", because this is true of eating, surfing the internet, shopping, and just about anything else. Gambling, IMO, is not simply frowned upon because of those who become addicted. The activity ITSELF is frowned upon by many religious types, even as a recreation or as a way to earn income.

If life is inherently a process of juggling risks vs. rewards, why is gambling the target of prohibition efforts? What is the moral problem with gambling?

[Joerii]

Good question !

I think to a lot of people, gambling is a sign of weakness. A chance to make easy money without "working" for it, and naive because you allways lose in the longrun.

I think relegious groups are against it because there just isn't any virtue in it. Nobody gets any better from it, only the people that own the gambling facility. It's a very selfcentered thing.

The squirel example is wrong though. If the squirel doesn't save his nuts, he has a very real chance of dying. So it's not much of a gamble for him or her.

[cbh]

Religious motivation against it may stem from a perceived view of gamblers and their personal qualities. Being a gambler is synonymous with being a degenerate or someone who is obsessed with money to some people. Religious types may find these unredeeming qualities and - in the typical blunder of correlation implies causation fallacy - attempt to attack gambling itself.

Another reason is terrorism /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ChrisV]

Part of it is certainly the evil of gambling addiction. It's pretty trite to say that people get "addicted" to surfing the internet. Some people do, but vast numbers more get addicted to gambling. Plus, gambling chews up money like crazy.

The other reason is that gamblers are committing the sin of greed. There's no reason to gamble other than the desire to win a large sum of money.

[pokeraz]

Deciding to place a wager on a roulette table and deciding which 'rabbit to hunt' are clearly not relatable. Sure, both decisions involve risk, but one is voluntary and one is born out of the necessity of living. Hopefully the author of the passage is not using that paragraph to state that wagering at the roulette table is a natural consequence of life involving risks.

Gambling on games of chance can be very unhealthy for some. Just as a lot of things can be enjoyed by most but abused by others.

[hashi92]

Its because the trully religous folk dont have the tempermant to be good at it so they try to outlaw it.

[Skoob]

It's a religous thing. If you google "is gambling a sin?" you'll get all sorts of info. In short:
1. the bible says it's wrong to love money.
2. casinos offer free alcohol to players, thus gambling = drunkeness
3. gambling "promotes" dishonesty by encouraging you to cheat in order to win (this is a stretch IMHO, but whatever...)
4. even though gambling can be used for charitable fund raising (churches sometimes have a bingo night), the proceeds are often not used for good things. In other words, any clergy who using gambling to help raise money for their church is a cheating, lying, scumbag.
5. gambling also promotes violent crime, prostitution, and other undesireable activities.

The above may or may not be true. But those are most of the claims the folks who object have.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a gambler is synonymous with being a degenerate or someone who is obsessed with money to some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably but I don't understand it. How is it any different than investing in the stock market, yet I don't see the religious right trying to outlaw that. And yes people get addicted to trading stocks just as they do other forms of gambling.

And even putting your money in a savings account is a form of trying to make more money without "working for it", so if gambling = sloth then why doesn't all investing?

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably but I don't understand it. How is it any different than investing in the stock market, yet I don't see the religious right trying to outlaw that. And yes people get addicted to trading stocks just as they do other forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just playing devil's advocate here...
The big difference with the stock market is you're buying a piece of a company. You own something until you sell it, not unlike starting your own small business. It's just that there are thousands of co-owners with you. Gambling is just a wager with only cash exchanging hands.

Playing the market a certain way can be akin to gambling, but you can also do it different and invest in a company for the long term. Gambling is always gambling, no matter what.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably but I don't understand it. How is it any different than investing in the stock market, yet I don't see the religious right trying to outlaw that. And yes people get addicted to trading stocks just as they do other forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just playing devil's advocate here...
The big difference with the stock market is you're buying a piece of a company. You own something until you sell it, not unlike starting your own small business. It's just that there are thousands of co-owners with you. Gambling is just a wager with only cash exchanging hands.

Playing the market a certain way can be akin to gambling, but you can also do it different and invest in a company for the long term. Gambling is always gambling, no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one big difference is that usually investing in the stock market is +EV, whereas usually gambooling is -EV. Not that I agree with the banning or regulating of gambling in any way.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably but I don't understand it. How is it any different than investing in the stock market, yet I don't see the religious right trying to outlaw that. And yes people get addicted to trading stocks just as they do other forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just playing devil's advocate here...
The big difference with the stock market is you're buying a piece of a company. You own something until you sell it, not unlike starting your own small business. It's just that there are thousands of co-owners with you. Gambling is just a wager with only cash exchanging hands.

Playing the market a certain way can be akin to gambling, but you can also do it different and invest in a company for the long term. Gambling is always gambling, no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one big difference is that usually investing in the stock market is +EV, whereas usually gambooling is -EV. Not that I agree with the banning or regulating of gambling in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And as a further distinction, the existence of gambling requires a 'house'. It's easy to view most games as stealing from the weak, even though I prefer to think of it as a 'stupid tax'.

Frankly, I find myself a little sickened by poker now. I still play, but I HATE to play against idiots, drunks, and gambling addicts. I don't really believe in universal morals, but if I did, I would have to think that gambling was an immoral thing. And as a practical matter, there is little question that it is a source of suffering.

[ill rich]

because most gamblers lose their hard-earned money.

religious people don't like it when people get taken advantage of.

[cbh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being a gambler is synonymous with being a degenerate or someone who is obsessed with money to some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably but I don't understand it. How is it any different than investing in the stock market, yet I don't see the religious right trying to outlaw that. And yes people get addicted to trading stocks just as they do other forms of gambling.

And even putting your money in a savings account is a form of trying to make more money without "working for it", so if gambling = sloth then why doesn't all investing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religious positions don't make sense.

[soko]

Because in gambling (the casino type) you are designed to lose.

If you were designed to win it would be called working.

There is a poker parallel there, many people think poker players are degenerate but change their mind when the see how much profit you've made over the long term.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
because most gamblers lose their hard-earned money.

religious people don't like it when people get taken advantage of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where to start ...
I've never made money going to an opera, it's a money pit.
Most marriages fail, should we pass a law?
Most businesses fail, should capitalism be outlawed?

I'm not able to figure out the reasoning used by that claim...
.. is there any?

luckyme

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think one big difference is that usually investing in the stock market is +EV, whereas usually gambooling is -EV. Not that I agree with the banning or regulating of gambling in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And as a further distinction, the existence of gambling requires a 'house'. It's easy to view most games as stealing from the weak, even though I prefer to think of it as a 'stupid tax'.

Frankly, I find myself a little sickened by poker now. I still play, but I HATE to play against idiots, drunks, and gambling addicts. I don't really believe in universal morals, but if I did, I would have to think that gambling was an immoral thing. And as a practical matter, there is little question that it is a source of suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one thing I have been struggling with recently.

We often talk about what should and shouldn't be legal. As a subset of actions that should be legal, there are actions that are ethical. I've have been using "rational self-interest without using force" as my ethical guide for a while now and it seems to work with everything so far. One thing I'm not sure about is engaging in a voluntary trade with someone who is stupid and who, if he weren't stupid, wouldn't do the trade. There are lots of examples of this, for example, working in the tobacco industry. I dunno, but I suspect if people who get addicted to smoking knew the full ramifications when they first started, they probably wouldn't have smoked those first cigarrettes. I just know that I could not work in the tobacco industry, yet my ethical guide tells me that it should be fine.

If you disagree with my ethical guide (as I suspect many will), please let me know what you use.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Deciding to place a wager on a roulette table and deciding which 'rabbit to hunt' are clearly not relatable. Sure, both decisions involve risk, but one is voluntary and one is born out of the necessity of living. Hopefully the author of the passage is not using that paragraph to state that wagering at the roulette table is a natural consequence of life involving risks.

Gambling on games of chance can be very unhealthy for some. Just as a lot of things can be enjoyed by most but abused by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, how about putting your money on the roulette table and applying for a job in a certain field or choosing a certain major at college? Starting your own business?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
because most gamblers lose their hard-earned money.

religious people don't like it when people get taken advantage of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two sentences may very well be true on their own (although I might argue with the second one) but they don't have anything to do with one another.

[vhawk01]

And yes, I do have the most recent post on 7 threads on the first page of SMP. Clearly my exams are over and I can finally get back to posting....

[Hercules]

[ QUOTE ]

This passage reinforced what I've always thought: life is a risk. Getting in your car and driving to work is a risk. Investing money in the stock market is a risk. Buying a home is a risk.

So why the moral outrage against games of chance? And why do religious groups in general seem to have such a problem with it? It can't simply be that "some people get addicted", because this is true of eating, surfing the internet, shopping, and just about anything else. Gambling, IMO, is not simply frowned upon because of those who become addicted. The activity ITSELF is frowned upon by many religious types, even as a recreation or as a way to earn income.

If life is inherently a process of juggling risks vs. rewards, why is gambling the target of prohibition efforts? What is the moral problem with gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]


This post is sooo funny, because i had like exactly the same conversation with my dad a few months ago. I used like almost litterly your examples.
But: I discussed with him about poker. And there is a big difference between poker and crap/roulette/slots.

a) People have this cliche type of picture of the gamblor loosing all his money and ruining his family....People DONT have the picture of a business man failing and ruining etc...
b) My argumentation was if "poker is bad/immoral etc.", then the stock market, every business, professional sport is also bad/immoral etc...
Because its basically the same schema: Someone wins, while somebody else looses. If one guy plays better soccer, he will "destroy" the 2nd best guys career. If a stock trader sells critical stocks to somebody else and one day later the company is busto....etc. etc......
c) gambling is like business: There are rules and everybody knows/should know them. In between these rules people "play" and obv somebody will win. And as long as there are no "hidden rules", there`s nothing immoral about it.

d)My dad is not that silly narrow-minded type of person. But he has his "views". And i think many people who are against gambling "have their views". They only see the bad part. But they don`t see that the bad part is not significantly related to gambling. People get addicted to all kind of stuff and the same people who are against gambling could also be against alcohol and whatever...


e) Basically, if you go further with the discussion, it will lead to a "personal freedom vs responsibility" discussion and something like "how much should we forbid people to do this and that and how much personal freedom should they have"


f) Before i end i haven`t mentioned the so often used "Africa-argument". I pegged it that way /images/graemlins/cool.gif...
People say: Instead of gambling, you could spend the money to help poor people etc...
I will remember these people, when they are in a mall with a not-empty shopping bag...What is better? Buying the 13th pair of jeans or gambling up some money?

[Taraz]

I would say gambling is generally considered "bad" for a few reasons:

- It's highly addictive.

- It has the potential to be very destructive. And the destruction isn't gaining a few pounds, it's losing all your material posessions.

- As ChrisV said, it's all about greed (a perceived sin)

- It's almost universally -EV for the player, so you will end up losing out in the long run. (Think smoking cigarettes or something where long term health is sacrificed for short term pleasure.)

- It's not socially accepted like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I think this is as big of a factor as anything.

[mudbuddha]

doesnt contribute to society in anyway cept maybe happiness for the people playin

but.. poker is just investing law of large numbers /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Daisydog]

I think one of the reasons gambling is considered bad and investing is not, is that gambling is a zero sum game. There is nothing productive about gambling. It just amounts to people exchanging money among themselves. Contrast this with investing. This is also risky, but it can be very productive. Investing can help fund the creation of new ideas, processes, and efficiencies that can improve society and create new wealth.

[Tater10]

State Farm / Allstate business model: Let's take a little bit of money from a whole bunch of people. We will calculate the odds of certain events happening. If the odds 'go their way' (car wreck, get cancer, house burns down, etc), we will reward them. We'll skim some off the side for ourselves. It's a true -EV bet for these suckers, yet they will still want to play. Heck, maybe we can even get laws passed to mandate they play with us! muhahahahahahaha

[newb411breaker19]

i agree with daisydog and many of the opinions here. I guess one could argue that losing gamblers are contributing economically buy supporting an industry which employs many people.. however for someone who wins long term in something like sportsbetting, he really hasn't contributed to the industry because if everyone won like him the books would be out of business. But as to it being wrong.. i think gambling is still largely a social stigma because gambling generally wasn't done on friendly terms. In the Roman Empire people would bet on gladiator matches that were fought to the death. Out on the streets people who played dice were swindlers looking to cheat you. In the wild west gambling would often times lead to violence. The stigma of gambling will dissapate as it becomes more popular within a society. I don't live in Europe but it seems that gambling is tolerated much better there than in America, so it is largely cultural as well

[Daisydog]

[ QUOTE ]
State Farm / Allstate business model: Let's take a little bit of money from a whole bunch of people. We will calculate the odds of certain events happening. If the odds 'go their way' (car wreck, get cancer, house burns down, etc), we will reward them. We'll skim some off the side for ourselves. It's a true -EV bet for these suckers, yet they will still want to play. Heck, maybe we can even get laws passed to mandate they play with us! muhahahahahahaha

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you could say insurance is -EV in that the premiums you pay are expected to be greater than the claim payments you will receive. You could also say iPods and haircuts are -EV because you pay more money for these things than you get back. The point is that with all these things you get something in return. With insurance you are getting risk pooling that would be difficult to do on your own. What about mutual funds? Are they -EV? They take a cut off the top but they provide diversification in return.

By the way, you could argue that you get something in return for the -EV associated with gambling, too (entertainment).

There are probably some bad insurance products out there, but, in general, I don't think people who buy insurance are suckers. There is probably a lot of economic activity that would not take place without the existence of insurance. For example, I would not have built my house if I could not have insured it. The bank would also not have loaned me money without it being insured. I'm willing to give up a little EV to the insurance company in exchange for protection from financial catastrophe.

In general, insurance is valuable to me, as are iPods, haircuts, mutual funds, and gambling. You could say they are all -EV, but you get something in return.

[miw210]

Gambling destroys lives. Rabbit hunting doesn't (except for Mr. Fudd).

[DougShrapnel]

Gambling is considered bad because most self desribed gamblers are cheaters. Those who cheat have bismirched the rest of the honest players, and destroyed the game in the process. If we can't stop the cheaters, we will never be able to get a positive consideration for gambling or by extension poker.

[livecards]

People make moral judgements about other's activities that have no bearing on their lives. It makes them feel better about their miserable, boring lives.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is considered bad because most self desribed gamblers are cheaters. Those who cheat have bismirched the rest of the honest players, and destroyed the game in the process. If we can't stop the cheaters, we will never be able to get a positive consideration for gambling or by extension poker.

[/ QUOTE ] Not most but a good percentage.

[BigPoppa]

Combination of:

1) Violates the 'work ethic" by offering big winnings without work

2) Destructive to problem gamblers

[Hercules]

[ QUOTE ]
Combination of:

1) Violates the 'work ethic" by offering big winnings without work

2) Destructive to problem gamblers

[/ QUOTE ]

I don`t know if thats your opinion, or if you are just listing the ones of others.
But isn`t this a bit flat, after so many detailed posts on that topic?
I mean, both of the (your) arguments were already taken into pieces,...and you`re not giving any new reasoning etc...

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
State Farm / Allstate business model: Let's take a little bit of money from a whole bunch of people. We will calculate the odds of certain events happening. If the odds 'go their way' (car wreck, get cancer, house burns down, etc), we will reward them. We'll skim some off the side for ourselves. It's a true -EV bet for these suckers, yet they will still want to play. Heck, maybe we can even get laws passed to mandate they play with us! muhahahahahahaha

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider the situation from the other side. Let's say you own your house free and clear. However, you certainly don't have enough money to outright replace your house if it gets irreparably damaged. So not getting flood/fire/homeowner's insurance would be a +EV bet, but it would be a bet above your smart bankroll management limits.