The Ethics of Gambling

 

The Ethics of Gambling

Darcy Smittenaar

SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility

Linda Atkinson

January 27, 2014 

The Ethics of Gambling

Is gambling ethical, right or virtuous?  Some, such as those who prefer a relativist perspective to ethical concerns, say yes, while many others say no.  From both the viewpoint of a virtue ethicist and from a utilitarian theorist’s view, however, gambling is, indeed unethical, and anyone who participates in such a pastime—especially casino gambling—is not a virtuous person.

A virtue ethicist defines virtue based on the motivation behind an issue (Mosser, 2013). “Why do people gamble, either in casinos or elsewhere?” is therefore the question at the root of a virtue ethicist’s argument.  The answers are manifold, but none of these answers would tell a virtue ethicist anything good about gambling: greed, boredom, addiction, a misunderstanding of statistical fact (Swekoski & Barnbaum, 2013), or even because the gambler is looking for a quick way to get money to feed his or her family.  In order to illustrate the unethical nature of gambling from a virtue ethicist’s view point, the arguments for gambling are presented from an ethical egoist’s perspective.  Because these arguments are manifold and reflect the nature of different communities of gamblers, they are also those of a relativist’s perspective.

Those who own and run casinos would definitely say that gambling is ethical, because it lines their pockets, and those who gamble just to get more money than they can make without gambling would say so as well.  Those gambling for the money—or providing places to gamble in order to make a profit—are greedy.  If they are especially skilled gamblers, then the money they receive can be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times more than their original stake, and they just want more of it.  A virtue ethicist would argue that greediness is wrong; a greedy person takes from those who need, and does not give anything back, just as the owner of a casino makes a profit and would only give that money away if it was required by law.  Therefore, an avaricious gambler, or a casino owner, is not a good or virtuous person in the eyes of a virtue ethicist.

The “community” of people who gamble because they are bored would also consider their gambling an ethical pastime.  When people are bored, they find occupation.  Some of the occupation they could find is not as productive as others.  Gambling produces only debt or wealth—usually debt for the gambler and wealth for the house.  A gambler does not contribute to society in any way, instead staving off his or her boredom by betting the money they have earned with real, productive work on things that do not matter in the grand scheme of the world: whether or not the cards in their hands can beat the cards in their opponents hands, whether or not a metal ball will stop on a certain color or number, or whether or not a certain combination of pictures will show up on a randomly rotating series of wheels.  To paraphrase a proverb by Henry G. Bohn, idleness of thought or hand leaves room for all sorts of mischief (Bohn, 1855), and a virtue ethicist would see the lack of virtue in gambling, because gamblers are those idlers who have let that mischief into their lives.

There is a community of gambling addicts.  As long as they can get their gambling “fix,” these gamblers believe they are participating in an ethical activity, and that anything which keeps them from gambling is wrong.  Long-time gamblers—or even short-term gamblers who have had a good “winning streak”—can become addicted to the thrill of gambling.  An addictive substance or circumstance creates a need in the addict for itself.  This self-creating need for a thing that is not basic sustenance, shelter or comfort undermines the human identity.  An addict is no longer the person he or she was before becoming addicted; he or she is all need, all the time.  He or she has become a machine, a virus which consumes anything in its path which will get it more of its necessary substance or thrill.  Since an addiction to gambling turns people into addicts—basically non-people—a virtue ethicist would argue that gambling is not a virtuous occupation.

Yet another group of gamblers believe that the odds can never be against them, and therefore, their gambling is a good thing to do.  Often, gamblers believe that the statistical odds against their winning big are “somehow suspended in their case, owing to undue optimism about their chances” (Swekoski and Barnbaum, 2013, p. 1).  Whether or not they have been educated as to the statistical reality, these gamblers cannot understand that they are not going to win as often as they think they will, and are often lured into further debt, believing that the axiom, “The house always wins” does not apply to their gambling experience.  Since gambling creates this willful misunderstanding or ignorance of the statistical reality, gamblers, in a virtue ethicist’s eyes, would not be virtuous.  At best, they would simply be stupid, confused dupes.

One final community of gamblers, the debtors, is the most heartbreaking group of all, because they really believe that their gambling will help their loved ones to have better lives; therefore, their gambling must be good and virtuous.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, and many who have money trouble believe that gambling will help them to “earn” more money to take care of their basic needs of food, shelter, and comfort.  These people will take their lives’ savings, or their entire pay checks, and gamble with them, believing that they will receive many times more than the original amount gambled.  Most go home with nothing, leaving them unable to provide for themselves or their families.  Since gambling means people spending what little they have on non-essentials, a virtue ethicist would call gambling non-virtuous behavior, as would a utilitarian since it means the greatest good is going to the smallest number, instead of the greatest.

While a virtue ethicist would refer to a gambler’s motivation, a utilitarian would look at the consequences of gambling.  The main question in a utilitarian’s mind would be, “Does gambling do more harm or more good to the most people” (Mosser, 2013)?  Although there are some good points, a utilitarian would argue that more people and communities—including the gamblers themselves—are harmed by gambling than are helped by it, as shown by example in Australia, Atlantic City, New Jersey, and on Native American reservations around the United States (Oddo, 1997).

A study primarily based in Australia recently found that pathological gamblers—those who experience a “loss of control over gambling, deception about the extent of one’s involvement with gambling, and significant family or job disruption” (Williams, Grisham, Erskine & Cassidy, 2012, p. 224)—often have problems effectively adapting to unwanted emotions as well as less ability to clearly express or understand their own emotions.  These gamblers were also more impulsive (Williams, Grisham, Erskine & Cassidy, 2012).  Gambling to the point of addiction detracts from a person’s ability to feel, understand, express or cope with his or her own emotions, thereby ensuring that such a person is unhealthy.  Unhealthy people have low utility, and therefore, a utilitarian would argue that gambling is unethical.

Furthermore, those people with mental and emotional disorders—such as pathological gamblers—once they realize they have a problem either cannot stop their gambling even if they want to.  For those who cannot stop, sometimes the only option is to keep gambling, or else risk severe withdrawal and depression because they are not receiving the endorphin high which gambling used to give them.  Their utility is reduced, because gambling has become an addiction, and the “fix” they get from gambling no longer makes them happy.

Another Australian study says that, while “leisure gambling” is a “legitimate and natural leisure activity,” the costs of becoming too involved in gambling are especially severe.  There are not only financial consequences for the gamblers themselves, but there are also “relationship, and emotional consequences for the gambler, significant others, and the community,” and these consequences are “comparatively acute, with wide ripple effects.”   Some such consequences are ”depression, anxiety and poor physical health” (Hing, Breen & Gordon, 2012, p. 218).  All of these consequences mean that the gambler has low utility, and therefore a utilitarian would not find gambling ethical.

A gambler’s family, friends and acquaintances can also come to harm from the gambler’s actions.  For instance, a heavy gambler will spend his or her whole pay check—or pension check—in order to “chase the big win,” or to get as much money as possible from their original stake.  Often, this original stake is lost all at once, within a few days of receiving the money, and the gambler has to borrow more money in order to pay bills—or even gamble more—until the next check comes (Hing, Breen & Gordon, 2012).  Since heavy gamblers use their entire pay in gambling and often have to borrow money until the next check, this means they are not paying for food, shelter or clothing for themselves or their families.  Their families’ utility is lower, since any non-gambling family members—especially spouses or grown children—will have to work harder to pay not only their own share of what needs paying, but also the gambler’s share.  If the gambler does not have any immediate family, then his or her utility would also be low, because he or she would most likely either be homeless, or would have legal trouble related to their debts—both gambling and non-gambling related.

Finally, a pathological gambler is likely to be out late, or not come home at all while there is still money to be gambled (Hing, Breen & Gordon, 2012).  They cannot be relied upon to be home at a certain time, or to help family members when they are in trouble.  Since a gambler has essentially taken himself or herself out of the family group, his or her family is therefore less happy—their utility is lower because of their family member’s gambling habit.  Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that gambling is unethical.

Those who find help for their addiction are also less happy—until they are able to stop feeding their need for gambling, and then they are still forever addicted to gambling.  These “recovering” gamblers pay many thousands of dollars in therapists’ fees—or spend many hours talking to groups of people like them in order to find support in their wish to quit gambling.  The loss of time and/or money these gamblers experience reduces their utility, since that time and money could be spent on activities which either would make the person truly happy—like a nice vacation, or higher education, for instance—and also since these people will never truly not be addicted to gambling; they will always want to go back to gambling for the high it gave them, but they know it will not make them happy to do so.  Resisting the urge to gamble also brings with it a loss of utility, because of this pull in opposite directions for the recovering gambling addict.  Since a pathological gambler can never truly be happy, either while he or she is feeding the gambling habit or while abstaining from gambling after having had the habit, a utilitarian would argue that gambling is unethical.

Casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey were originally planned as projects to revitalize the flagging community—creating jobs, drawing tourists to the area, and paving the way for nearby businesses to make money—thereby increasing the utility of the community of Atlantic City as a whole as well as the people who live and work there. The reality, however, is that Atlantic City has not been greatly improved since the opening of its first casino in 1978 (Oddo, 1997).

The casinos do well, yes, but less than five years after casinos were legalized in Atlantic City, “the number of retail businesses in Atlantic City declined by one-third," and “the number of restaurants ‘declined from 243 in 1977 to 146 in 1987.  Only about 10 percent of the businesses nearest to the casino locations in 1976 are still open today” (Oddo, 1997, para. 13).  If the number of retail businesses, restaurants and other businesses outside of—but originally close to—casinos in Atlantic City has declined since the casinos opened, many jobs have been lost, and people have had to find other work away from Atlantic City.  This is an overall decrease in not only any given Atlantic City resident’s utility, but in the community’s utility as a whole, since Atlantic City is not as vital a place as before.

Not only do Atlantic City’s casinos cost more to local residents in taxes, but the casinos do not make up for it by bringing in enough tourist dollars to make up the difference in pre-casino tax rates (Oddo, 1997).  This further decreases the utility of Atlantic City’s residents, because higher taxes mean less money that the residents can spend on the necessities of life: food, shelter and comfort.  Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that Atlantic City’s casinos are not places which should be visited by those who wish to be virtuous or good people.

While casinos on Native American reservations provide jobs to the Native Americans who live and work there, even the tribal leaders have misgivings about their casinos, and a utilitarian ethicist would as well.  Native Americans have warring motivations when it comes to casinos and gambling.  They do not love gaming, but the gaming in their casinos pays for the food which they put on their dinner tables, the clothing their families wear, and the houses they live in.  It is these three things which they provide to their loved ones which keep Native Americans running casinos on their reservations.

Despite the utility that the casinos bring to their families, those who live near a Native American casino “increasingly believe that there is more crime in the area than before the casino was opened and more traffic congestion, and the town is a less desirable place to live” (Oddo, 1997, para. 18).  Since it causes residents to desire less to live near the casino, this increase in crime and traffic problems due to casino gambling decreases the utility of those residents.  Therefore, a utilitarian would not find those who indulge in or who make money through casino gambling to be virtuous people.

The ethics of casino gambling may seem complicated, but in the asking of two questions—the virtue ethicist’s “Why are they doing it?” and the utilitarian’s “What happens after they do it?”—the conclusion that gambling is not something that a virtuous person would do comes easily.

References

Bohn, H. G. (1855). A Handbook of Proverbs. Retrieved from Google Books.

Hing, N., Breen, H., & Gordon, A. (2012). A Case Study of Gambling Involvement and Its Consequences. Leisure Sciences, 34(3), 217-235. doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.669682

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Oddo, A. (1997). The economics and ethics of casino gambling. Review of Business, 18(3), 4.

Swekoski, D., & Barnbaum, D. (2013). The Gambler's Fallacy, the Therapeutic Misconception, and Unrealistic Optimism. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 35(2), 1-6.

Williams, A. D., Grisham, J. R., Erskine, A., & Cassedy, E. (2012). Deficits in emotion regulation associated with pathological gambling. British Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 223-238. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02022.x