Poker is neither moral nor immoral - maybe

[yukoncpa]

I was reading this excellent discussion on morality, beginning with the discussion on “Normative Definitions of Morality.” To summarize as briefly as possible it said: An immoral act is when you act on others in such a way that you cause; death, pain, deception, or break a promise, without justification and hopefully, other rational people would agree with your justification. Acts of Charity are always moral, but need no justification to abstain from them.
Ok, the article went into much more detail than that, but as I was reading it, I was mentally ticking off the various justifications I have of playing poker for a living since undoubtably I’m causing some people pain, when suddenly I ran into this paragraph:

link

[ QUOTE ]
In trying to provide a definition of the traditional normative sense of “morality,” I find it useful to regard morality as a public system. I use the phrase, “public system” to refer to a guide to conduct such that (1) all persons to whom it applies, all those whose behavior is to be guided and judged by that system, know what behavior the system prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows; and (2) it is not irrational for any of these persons to accept being guided and judged by that system. The paradigm examples of public systems are card games such as bridge or poker, or athletic games such as baseball, football, and basketball. Although a game is a public system, it applies only to those playing the game. Although, occasionally, someone may participate in a game without knowing its point or all of the rules that apply to those playing the game, the standard case is that all do know the point of the game as well as all of the relevant rules. If a person does not care enough about the game to abide by the rules, she can usually quit. Morality is the one public system that no rational person can quit. This is the point that Kant, without completely realizing it, captured by saying that morality is categorical. Morality applies to people simply by virtue of their being rational persons.


[/ QUOTE ]

I need help in reading comprehension here. Is he saying that poker is a model of a moral system since it has a goal and rules that everyone knows. But unlike a moral system, people who are too lazy to abide by the rules or strive towards the goal ( that is make money ) can always quit. Whereas in a moral system, you can’t just quit.

So, Is he saying that playing poker is neither moral nor immoral, so I can quit worrying about trying to count down my many justifications?

[yukoncpa]

I’ll be the first to answer my own question. If my poker opponents were all rational people, where: they either win, or they quit as soon as they’ve derived sufficient entertainment or they quit when they realize they are way behind the learning curve and cannot conceivably win, then poker could not be seen as immoral.

But since, poker and gambling in general, attracts a great deal of irrational persons, then there is a question of moral duty on behalf of those that are irrational.

My new question would be: If my conduct of playing poker is completely rational for me, i.e. I enjoy it, it makes me money, I learn new and interesting things. And if my conduct allows me to be charitable, which I am and can afford to be for perhaps the first time in my life, and my conduct promotes peace and harmony among my friends, then does this justify those occasions where I cause some pain and suffering among irrational people?

[Taraz]

I think the quote is trying to say that games are a good way to conceptualize what morality is. Morality is like a game where everyone knows the rules, everyone agrees to abide by these rules, it makes sense for people to follow the rules, and people accept the consequences. He's not judging the morality of these games, he's just trying to show you that morality is the "game of life" so to speak.

With regard to the morality of poker, I know several rational people with gambling problems. The only reason I find poker slightly immoral is that I am often profiting off of someone else's addiction.

I guess you have to decide for yourself if your personal gain and the charity that you give is worth more than the pain and suffering of those that you take money from. I personally prefer not to think about it . . .

[yukoncpa]

Hi Taraz

This weighing of good and bad is interesting. If I were a tobacco company lobbyist, I could make the same claim that the job does me and everyone around me a great deal of good, but as far as I can see, every single person buying a cigarette is acting irrationally ( in a harmful way ) and therefore I’m acting more immoral than moral . Whereas in poker, my guess is there are more winners than most people think, and even among the losers, many, if not most, are taking something beneficial away from the table that they can use in their everyday lives.
I think there must be a degree of difference between being a poker player, a priest, a politician, etc. I’m biased, but if I were to guess, I would say that a poker player is the lesser evil, of many of these questionable legal endeavors and indeed poker may well provide an overall net good.

[Double Down]

Great discussion. I have been a professional poker player for two years now and have on occasion struggled with the morality issue (the issue being whether or not there is a morality issue). I would think that my job was essentially to take people's money and I did not offer any sort of product or service in return. At least the kid at McDonald's gives the customer a crappy burger. What was my service?
This thinking would really bring me down, and interestingly enough would have a major effect on my poker results. I would lose a lot, even though my play was the exact same (SNG specialist, ABC pushbot poker, but I would run terribly)

But this is faulty thinking. First of all, I do offer a service, and that is the service of a person to play poker against. Yes, the other players provide the exact same service for me. But it's not as if I am seeking out people to take advantage of. Besides, on any given day, a player that is less skilled than me could take my money.

The much deeper philosophical truth here is that we are placing moral values on certain unbiased actions and things such as winning, losing, money, and why people play poker.

It is we who are making the assumptions that winning=good, losing=bad, and that the reason why people play poker is for the money.

We do not know what is best for other people. Sometimes people aren't even aware of what is best for themselves. They may claim that they play to win, but it could be that the reason why some people continuously play badly and lose is because at some level, they need to have this experience of losing to come away with some sort of life lesson.

Basically, we are 100% responsible and in control of what happens to ourselves. Similarly, other people are 100% responsible for themselves.

If we beat someone at poker and they lose money, it is 100% their decision if they decide to come away from this experience negatively.

My .02

[kerowo]

Is eating immoral because some people overeat? How about drinking? Maybe team sports? Poker is not very different from those except the not needing it to live thing. Anything can be abused or done to the point of harm, that doesn't make it immoral. It makes the person who is being harmed and continues the activity a poor decision maker.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Great discussion. I have been a professional poker player for two years now and have on occasion struggled with the morality issue (the issue being whether or not there is a morality issue). I would think that my job was essentially to take people's money and I did not offer any sort of product or service in return. At least the kid at McDonald's gives the customer a crappy burger. What was my service?
This thinking would really bring me down, and interestingly enough would have a major effect on my poker results. I would lose a lot, even though my play was the exact same (SNG specialist, ABC pushbot poker, but I would run terribly)

But this is faulty thinking. First of all, I do offer a service, and that is the service of a person to play poker against. Yes, the other players provide the exact same service for me. But it's not as if I am seeking out people to take advantage of. Besides, on any given day, a player that is less skilled than me could take my money.

The much deeper philosophical truth here is that we are placing moral values on certain unbiased actions and things such as winning, losing, money, and why people play poker.

It is we who are making the assumptions that winning=good, losing=bad, and that the reason why people play poker is for the money.

We do not know what is best for other people. Sometimes people aren't even aware of what is best for themselves. They may claim that they play to win, but it could be that the reason why some people continuously play badly and lose is because at some level, they need to have this experience of losing to come away with some sort of life lesson.

Basically, we are 100% responsible and in control of what happens to ourselves. Similarly, other people are 100% responsible for themselves.

If we beat someone at poker and they lose money, it is 100% their decision if they decide to come away from this experience negatively.

My .02

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying professional poker playing is immoral. But this is not a good defense of your trade. You are not providing them 'someone else to play against' because there are plenty of people for them to play against...plenty of amateurs. If you are a prop or a shill or something, and you actually are keeping games running, thats a slightly different issue. But you aren't just some warm body...you are a professional.

[AlexM]

If you sell peanuts and someone who's allergic to them buys some, eats them and dies, does that make selling peanuts immoral? By the same token, poker isn't immoral. You're not responsible for other people's actions.

Now... if you encourage someone who really sucks to play you, that may be pushing it, but simply sitting down at a table and playing is certainly just fine.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
If you sell peanuts and someone who's allergic to them buys some, eats them and dies, does that make selling peanuts immoral? By the same token, poker isn't immoral. You're not responsible for other people's actions.

Now... if you encourage someone who really sucks to play you, that may be pushing it, but simply sitting down at a table and playing is certainly just fine.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but people who are allergic to peanuts, don’t buy peanuts. Those very few that don’t know they are allergic are acting rationally, just making a one time mistake. People who are harmed by poker, play poker in droves and continue to harm themselves over and over ( and this is something you know in advance ).

[lucksack]

Maybe poker causes more good to people (in form of money & entertainment) than bad, since most losing players don't lose too much money compared to how much they own.