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. It seems to me like widespread gambling = negative social effects is a pretty widespread, obvious conclusion that most civilizations have reached.
Moreover, one simply needs to look at which games casinos select to see how not only does the house always win, but it chooses to win more and entertain less --- Faro was once a popular game, and by all accounts is a great deal of fun to play, but a Faro table does not make as much money for the house as Blackjack and other games, so one doesn't see them in casinos these days.
In the Abrahamic tradition, seeking benefit by avoiding labor is sinful. I don’t think it needs to be widespread to serve as an example. One data point that widespread gambling was eroding norms was that professional gamblers could not give testimony.
OK, so what is to be done when access to labor is gatekept? If you can't have a job, or can't benefit from a job beyond "give a man a fish, he eats for a day", are you not meant to look for an opportunity to generate income outside of working?
If you’re a bookie, and an adherent of these Iron Age religions, then you might be instructed to Render upon Caesar. If being a bookie means feeding your family, you can relax so long as you realize that your responsibility is to slightly nudge the right players to win.
> If being a bookie means feeding your family, you can relax
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
> OK, so what is to be done when access to labor is gatekept?
The unemployment rate in the US is 4.3%.
Before you say anything, the U-6 rate is 8.1%.
Okay, so 30 million people, or more conservatively 16 million people. Same question, and before you say anything, don't be condescending.
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?
(1):https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
>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?
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?
From the wiki page, Christianity from the bible's perspective doesn't have a problem with gambling itself:
> 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.
You left out the entire first half of the section on Catholicism, which is an extremely misleading move on your part:
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
> which is an extremely misleading move on your part
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 think it’s fair to say that the Catholic opinion is very much against the type of widespread gambling that is prevalent today, especially in the sense of it having negative social effects.
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.
The post of your I replied to with the source says
> 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).
I think this distinction is not actually useful in real life, where 99% of the money problems are from certain types of gambling and not from others. When people discuss gambling, they aren’t talking about bingo games and school raffles, they’re talking about the thing most people mean by the word gambling.
If the root problem is greed how is making that distinction not useful in real life?
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.
In the same way distinguishing between heroin and codeine is useful. You can get addicted to either, but one sure makes it a lot easier.
Not sure I understand your analogy; Neither heroin nor codeine is a root cause of problems arising from the other.
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.
> widespread gambling = negative social effects
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.
Just because the causation goes one way doesn't mean it cannot go the other way, too. We call those vicious cycles.
Yeah but those are separate claims. "Lead causes health problem, and vicious cycles are a thing, therefore health problems cause lead!" is not a valid shape for an argument. It may well be true, but both directions have to be established before calling it a vicious cycle.
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.
Cause-and-effect relationships can be complicated and it is important not to jump to conclusions, but do you deny that there are millions of Americans who can correctly identify an addiction when they see it in someone they have some sort of ongoing relationshp with (either because they have training and experience in treating addiction or because they themselves or someone close to them were once addicted)?
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?
I do not dispute any of that. Many young Americans also get addicted to alcohol. Many young Americans self-harm over unrealistic ideals brought to them by the beauty/fashion industries. Many young Americans get depressed over social media.
We need to help these people, but we do not help them by driving their vices underground.
So, how should we help all the groups of young Americans you mention?
Strong, publically-funded social safety net is a good start, I think. Using vice taxes to contribute money to it is probably a decent idea.
You don't think gambling causes negative societal affects to any greater degree than the fashion industry?
I've not heard any convincing arguments in favour of that hypothesis, no. Have you met young women? They self-harm over unrealistic ideals.