Are lotteries ethical?

[Skip]

I've just read a long essay by FrankGSterleJr, posted here a couple of weeks ago and never answered....
presumably because none of us like reading.

In the old country, government sponsored lotteries were called "the fool's tax". When I first came to Canada, gambling was illegal with very few exceptions. The Irish sweepstakes, the racetrack (you had to go there in person), church-hall Bingo and some private clubs. Then, gradually, games of chance crept into carnivals and charity events; raffles became a regular form of fundraising.
Now, casinos, off-track and on-line betting on sports, poker and lotteries are ubiquitous.
Gambling is a huge source of revenue for governments and hospitals.

I have watched a woman who could have done with a warm coat and sturdy shoes throw away $80 in ten minutes, cracking open pile after pile of those stupid little tickets that imitate a slot machine. She wasn't enjoying herself; showed no excitement or anticipation: it was a quick and temporary fix for a sad and hopeless addict.
Not only is it legal to cater to this devastating addiction, the government promotes it with aggressive false advertising.

Is this good fiscal policy? Is it wise?
Is it right?

[Walker]

Subject to the final paragraph, no, it’s not right. The lady had no self-control. Her family should put her on a strict allowance.

Subject to the final paragraph, all vices should be legal.

Subject to the final paragraph, the detriment to vice should come from moral training by family, rather than punishment by law.

Subject to the final paragraph, the government should not profit from vice.

The final paragraph: A legal system that does not recognize vice would only work without social welfare safety nets. More importantly, it would only work without the mentality that makes social welfare safety nets possible. In other words, when people are totally responsible for their own existence, vice looks different. Less appealing. However, extreme libertarianism only works as a response to the hard times of a frontiersman, rather than the hard times of the fearful. In other words, once the spiral starts downward, the forces that enable the spiral will prevent any reversal. Something new must arise from the ashes, as continued cobbling results in an unrecognizable, faux-mutant society.

*

I was in Las Vegas for awhile. I remember it well. The first time I heard the word “gaming” used as a term in serious conversation there, I burst out laughing. I think it was just starting to be used then. Tried out. First, change the language to some innocuous term to soften the self-body punches of vice, debauchary, sin, and so on. Once the change is accepted, the perception of reality changes. It’s only gaming. It's fun!

[wtf]

First, change the language to some innocuous term to soften the self-body punches of vice, debauchary, sin, and so on. Once the change is accepted, the perception of reality changes. It’s only gaming. It's fun!

Sin? According to whom? What you call sin, I call entertainment. You would outlaw my pleasure that infringes no one else's freedom or well-being? By what right?

ps -- Is investing in stocks a sin too? I thought Cotton Mather was long dead.

[Walker]

First, change the language to some innocuous term to soften the self-body punches of vice, debauchary, sin, and so on. Once the change is accepted, the perception of reality changes. It’s only gaming. It's fun!

Sin? According to whom? What you call sin, I call entertainment. You would outlaw my pleasure that infringes no one else's freedom or well-being? By what right?

ps -- Is investing in stocks a sin too? I thought Cotton Mather was long dead.

Of course not. To reiterate, it is your ethical right to gamble. Every right bears a responsibility. For gamblers, the responsibility is to experience all the well-deserved and causally inevitable, personal consequences of gambling, and to accept responsibility for the undeserved consequences on behalf of their innocent family who had no ethical say in the matter, when the little children and their hard-working mother are deprived of sturdy shoes and warm coats for the high-desert winter. And you’re right about old Cotton. Mean to don’t pick no cotton.

[Skip]

Gambling is not a vice. It's not a sin.
It can be harmless fun, or 'a flutter' - the risk of a small, affordable stake in hope of winning a jackpot - or a willing contribution to some worthwhile charity, with the bonus of anticipating that one-in-2000 shot at the displayed prize. (At our local community center, it's a quilt made by the volunteers.)
But it can also be a desperate attempt to escape from financial hardship when no other escape is available, or a compulsion or an illness.
And the game itself can be rigged, misrepresented, held in circumstances that cloud the player's judgment, unsupervised as to the age and competence of players.

What is government's responsibility in -
1. informing the public
and 2. protecting the public?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Lotteries are a special form of taxation.
Taxation is a means to punish people. Lotteries punish those with a poor understanding of Maths.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Gambling isn't 'fun'. Go to a casino. They are sad places with tacky decor and a horrible atmosphere. You won't see anyone having 'fun'.

[Skip]

There are different kinds of gambling, as per my point.
Buying a raffle ticket for a quilt to support a drop-center for seniors is beneficial. Taking part in a work-place 'pool' promotes interaction. A spirited game of penny ante poker among friends is fun. A day at the racetrack is exhilarating. The gambling aspect to those activities is secondary to the social aspect.

Casinos are different. However, if gambling is secondary to entertainment, they, too can be fun. I did have a wonderful time in Las Vegas. The show was spectacular; the food was top notch; the decor was garishly overdone but never dull, and the gambling - for us - consisted of $10 worth of change in the slot machines, which took till 3 am to lose. So, even there, it's not the same experience for everyone.

Government lottery tickets are not fun - they're just bits of paper you have to stand in line for. There is an element of anticipation: while waiting for the draw, you can watch the television ads about idiotic things other people might do with the jackpot. On the other hand, you can fantasize about the things you'd do with $60 mil, even without buying a ticket. All the fun for none of the expense.

[Walker]

I play the lottery once in awhile. One ticket. A bit of luck sparks the interest and makes one wonder about things.

For instance, on one sporadic and unpredictable urge I bought a single ticket. Pick all six numbers not in sequence before chaos picks them and you win a vast fortune. Enough fortune to provide security for generations. I picked three of the six random numbers that were drawn. The ticket paid 7-1. But more than the pocket change that was my prize, the experience tells me to listen, which paradoxically, has caused me to often wear earplugs.

When Atlantic City opened to gambling with Resorts International, I walked in the door with $40, sat at the first chair to the left of the blackjack dealer, and an hour later had $550. I gave Carlos the dealer a colorful chip for a tip, and went back to the daily grind the next day. A week later I went back with a portion of the winnings, which was much more money in those days, and promptly lost it.

I used to play the horses a bit, and picking a winning horse is a lot of fun. The pick is a blend of rational and intuitive. Lots of helpful objective variables to consider on the racing form. But other than coffee money here or there, there was never an attachment to the pastime, and I never wandered into the money-tree forest of attachment and desire.

Do you think that form follows intent, such as the intent for one sentence to pull you to the next?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Lotteries are morally neutral.

People who sell lottery tickets very often prey on the stupid, for their own gain. It is the seller and the buyer to whom the question needs be addressed, and each instance of a sale shall be unique ethically.
A buyer might better spend his money on his children, the seller might better sell him some food.

[Walker]

Buying a raffle ticket for a quilt to support a drop-center for seniors is beneficial. Taking part in a work-place 'pool' promotes interaction. A spirited game of penny ante poker among friends is fun. A day at the racetrack is exhilarating. The gambling aspect to those activities is secondary to the social aspect.

That does explain a lot. Since the essence of gambling is to win, the social aspect of gambling is to participate in the revelation of how people behave while following a common essence. But you can really see this unobscured reality-cognition of following a common essence, while in the presence of artists and producers.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Buying a raffle ticket for a quilt to support a drop-center for seniors is beneficial. Taking part in a work-place 'pool' promotes interaction. A spirited game of penny ante poker among friends is fun. A day at the racetrack is exhilarating. The gambling aspect to those activities is secondary to the social aspect.

All of these "positive" outcomes can all be achieve without the exchange of ANY money. It can all be achieved without any 'losers'.
The problem with the normalisation of gambling is that it promotes some of the worst aspects of modern society: money for nothing, losing and winning without merit or honor; charity without giving.
The claim that it is harmless not only is false, but makes gambling more harmful for the belief that it is harmless. It reifies a capitalist ideology which suggest that if you have money you can make more without working or contributing.

[Dalek Prime]

Birth is a lottery. You think that's ethical. I don't. It's the only lottery that someone else plays for you. The rest, you get the choice. And choice is ethical, except in a Hobson's choice.

So, the question is, or should be, are lotteries Hobson's choices, or based on them?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Birth is a lottery. You think that's ethical. I don't. It's the only lottery that someone else plays for you. The rest, you get the choice. And choice is ethical, except in a Hobson's choice.

So, the question is, or should be, are lotteries Hobson's choices, or based on them?

Hobson's Choice is a choice that is no choice at all. No one has to play the lottery.
And who thinks birth is "ethical"?

[Impenitent]

Birth is a lottery. You think that's ethical. I don't. It's the only lottery that someone else plays for you. The rest, you get the choice. And choice is ethical, except in a Hobson's choice.

So, the question is, or should be, are lotteries Hobson's choices, or based on them?

Hobson's Choice is a choice that is no choice at all. No one has to play the lottery.
And who thinks birth is "ethical"?

the aborted

-Imp