Why is gambling considered "bad"?

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]...
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?