Are lotteries ethical?

[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?

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

They don't think.... Next.

[Dalek Prime]

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

Consider it a tax on stupidity then.

[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"?

the aborted

-Imp

The aborted don't hink.

[Walker]

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.

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

[Walker]

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.

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

[Skip]

I'm going to flip the two halves of your objection, so the conclusion I consider most important comes at the end.

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.

That's also true. But money is with us and we can't escape it. Money is in every part of our lives and its presence or absence is often literally a matter of life and death. Gambling is also very much a part of the fabric of our society. The bank manager has to decide whether you're a good enough risk for a mortgage. You buy insurance based on risk-assessment. You shell out big bucks on a university degree in the expectation of a career that will pay it back many-fold. All investment is a gamble, and capitalism is all about investment: risking a little to get a lot. Your very pension fund is riding on Red 22 while you sleep.

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.

That's quite true. Just giving, with no hope of getting anything to show for it is a charitable act, makes you feel virtuous and lofty. The raffle doesn't make you feel virtuous; the hope of winning turns giving into a selfish act. If you win, you stay selfish, but you have the prize. If you lose, you have the consolation of your money going to a good cause instead of organized crime.
It's psychologically more balanced than going to a casino. It's also safely limited: you risk very little money and no damage.

I believe that's a healthier way to indulge a near-universal human foible. I haven't really read or thought about its origins, but gambling, betting, games of chance, in some form or another, seem to have been present in all cultures for a very long time. Probably long before money, if child behaviour is any indication. Even five-year-olds with no access to currency will make bets on the outcome of an event. "No way he can get three baskets in a row." "Betcha he can!" "My fries against your soda?" " Yer on!" It's a very primitive impulse.

And I think that's what makes it so readily exploitable. That's what makes promoting it and profiting from it so wrong when done by the same people who force us to wear crash helmets and seat belts.

[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.

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

Where is the moral dimension here?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm going to flip the two halves of your objection, so the conclusion I consider most important comes at the end.

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.

That's also true. But money is with us and we can't escape it.

Guns have been invented, so we must keep killing people?

Money is in every part of our lives and its presence or absence is often literally a matter of life and death. Gambling is also very much a part of the fabric of our society.

No it is not. It's a minority activity that tends to do harm.

The bank manager has to decide whether you're a good enough risk for a mortgage. You buy insurance based on risk-assessment. You shell out big bucks on a university degree in the expectation of a career that will pay it back many-fold. All investment is a gamble, and capitalism is all about investment: risking a little to get a lot. Your very pension fund is riding on Red 22 while you sleep.

Not exactly the same though is it. No one is guaranteeing your bet on the roulette table. With a pension you don't have to risk the whole stake. If you are just going to say that EVERYTHING is the same as gambling then you are going to have an easy time convincing yourself you are right, but not other people.

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.

That's quite true. Just giving, with no hope of getting anything to show for it is a charitable act, makes you feel virtuous and lofty. The raffle doesn't make you feel virtuous; the hope of winning turns giving into a selfish act. If you win, you stay selfish, but you have the prize. If you lose, you have the consolation of your money going to a good cause instead of organized crime.
It's psychologically more balanced than going to a casino. It's also safely limited: you risk very little money and no damage.

You are missing the fact that most of the money goes directly into the pockets of the Lottery Owners, who act as a parasite on the charities that get a few crumbs off the table. Lottery owners who are risking nothing.

I believe that's a healthier way to indulge a near-universal human foible.
You have got to be kidding.
I haven't really read or thought about its origins, but gambling, betting, games of chance, in some form or another, seem to have been present in all cultures for a very long time. Probably long before money, if child behaviour is any indication. Even five-year-olds with no access to currency will make bets on the outcome of an event. "No way he can get three baskets in a row." "Betcha he can!" "My fries against your soda?" " Yer on!" It's a very primitive impulse.

Other forms of human social disease have also been with us a long time. That does not make them a good idea.

And I think that's what makes it so readily exploitable. That's what makes promoting it and profiting from it so wrong when done by the same people who force us to wear crash helmets and seat belts.

I think that is possibly the most childish generalisation I've heard in a long while. You might as well say that the people who invaded France in 1941 are the same people that gave us Beethoven.

[Walker]

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.

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

Where is the moral dimension here?

First contemplate the situation that is, then move on to engineering society with what should and should not be. Working for luxury is the situation for most LV vacationers. Many who worship mammon take the fun pilgrimage into the bright lights of the desert night in order to sacrifice through squander, on the green felt alters of gaming tables, some of what they have striven to gain in life. One-armed bandits have become one-armed accomplices. The gambling meccas and their satellites, not the church raffle, is where mamma and pappa dribble away the mortgage payments.

[Walker]

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.

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

Where is the moral dimension here?

First contemplate the situation that is, then move on to engineering society with what should and should not be. Working for luxury is the situation for most LV vacationers. Many who worship mammon take the fun pilgrimage into the bright lights of the desert night in order to sacrifice through squander, on the felt green and felt red alters of gaming tables, some of what they have striven to gain in life. One-armed bandits have become one-armed accomplices. The gambling meccas and their satellites, not the church raffle, is where mamma and pappa dribble away the mortgage payments, the education fund, the nest egg, and sometimes the set-aside for the children's accompanied pilgrimage to that other fantasy place, Disney World.

[Hobbes' Choice]

People work for luxuries, not food. “Food on the table,” just sounds noble when said by the guy with a house, a boat, a car, a motorbike, annual vacations to at least two vacation spots, one adult and one for the children. Food does enable one to work for luxuries, though. Fairly trade your pocket change for a piece of paper and you just might get to experience lots of new luxuries. Fantasy sells.

Where is the moral dimension here?

First contemplate the situation that is, then move on to engineering society with what should and should not be. Working for luxury is the situation for most LV vacationers. Many who worship mammon take the fun pilgrimage into the bright lights of the desert night in order to sacrifice through squander, on the green felt alters of gaming tables, some of what they have striven to gain in life. One-armed bandits have become one-armed accomplices. The gambling meccas and their satellites, not the church raffle, is where mamma and pappa dribble away the mortgage payments.

Immorality, then.

[Walker]

Sorry, I first read that as immortality and spun out into a brief tangent.

But I think you’re right. Immorality has become sanctioned through what is presented for us to perceive. And there are reasons for that based on assumptions, sometimes upended but mostly drowning in holiday syrup. The trend for big budget and big spending is ripe to be plucked by a strong morality tale.

[Skip]

[investment = gambling] Not exactly the same though is it. ... With a pension you don't have to risk the whole stake.

You don't even get to make the choice of how much is invested in what. And no investment is guaranteed. See 1929, 1981, 2008 etc.

If you are just going to say that EVERYTHING is the same as gambling then you are going to have an easy time convincing yourself you are right, but not other people.

Perhaps not. But in fact I didn't say EVERYTHING; I said capital. The stock exchange is one big casino.

[charity raffle]
You are missing the fact that most of the money goes directly into the pockets of the Lottery Owners,

There are no lottery owners in a raffle. Just the Hospital Auxiliary or Friends of the Library or whatever local group needs to raise funds for a local project and donate the prize. This kind of very small scale charitable gambling is what I was contrasting as relatively healthy against the state or provincial lottery, which is exemplified by the thing I object to:

who act as a parasite on the charities that get a few crumbs off the table. Lottery owners who are risking nothing.

[gambling impulse]Other forms of human social disease have also been with us a long time. That does not make them a good idea.

Until you find a cure, disease needs to be managed. Just telling it to go away hasn't worked.

[And I think that's what makes it so readily exploitable. That's what makes promoting it and profiting from it so wrong when done by the same people who force us to wear crash helmets and seat belts.]This was aimed at a government that, on one hand, tries to protect the citizen from his own irresponsible risk-taking by the enforcement of safety laws, and on the other, encourages and exploits that same irresponsible risk-taking for financial gain. These are the literally same people: members of a legislative body.

I think that is possibly the most childish generalisation I've heard in a long while. You might as well say that the people who invaded France in 1941 are the same people that gave us Beethoven.

Those were the same nation, but the actual people were separated by over a century and the decision-making process was widely distributed.
Germany didn't 'give' us Beethoven. He happened to be born German, with a musical talent and other peoples happened to like what he produced. Gertrude Weissemann was also born German, also had a great musical talent, but never learned to play the piano, because she was only three years old when the Lancasters levelled her parents' house. The bomb that killed her was dropped by 20-year-old Ian MacLintock, who was also musically gifted, but kept it a secret lest his ultra-severe Protestant grandfather beat that frivolity out of him.
It's all the same people.
Human nature is not a good idea - but if it won't go away, we have to find better ways to live with it.

[Walker]

There are no lottery owners in a raffle. Just the Hospital Auxiliary or Friends of the Library or whatever local group needs to raise funds for a local project and donate the prize. This kind of very small scale charitable gambling is what I was contrasting as relatively healthy against the state or provincial lottery, which is exemplified by the thing I object to:

So what's really going on.

Because there is no profit, a raffle isn’t really gambling. It’s a fair exchange for the losers, and an unfair but lucky exchange for the winner.

The losers pay $2 to dream about something good that could really happen. The $2 also permits a little executive thrill of saying Yes to someone when asked, "Would you like to buy a raffle ticket?" On top of that, for just $2 he can have the satisfaction of contibuting to a cause. This is not only a fair exchange, it’s a bargain.

The winner participates in an unfair exchange. He pays $2 and gets a new car, plus tax.

Ethically, it teaches little children the thrill of hoping to get something for nothing.

However, when you teach a child to gamble at golf, you ethically teach him to not only honestly assess and bank on his skills, but to accurately assess reality.

[Skip]

Because there is no profit, a raffle isn’t really gambling. It’s a fair exchange for the losers, and an unfair but lucky exchange for the winner.

What's unfair about it? The winner's chance to get the quilt was exactly the same as the loser's. Luck is never fair, but neither has it any ethical standard to meet. The game itself is fair as long as every participant has the same chance of winning.

Ethically, it teaches little children the thrill of hoping to get something for nothing.

What little children? What connects ethics to thrill?
Little children in prosperous families routinely get whatever they need, and most of what they merely desire, for nothing. Little children of deprived families don't get what they want even if they do work for it - assuming little children's work has any value in the first place.

However, when you teach a child to gamble at golf, you ethically teach him to not only honestly assess and bank on his skills, but to accurately assess reality.

Who teaches children to bet on golf? Do children even take an interest in golf? How old are they? Are they actually playing golf and making bets on their own game, or are they placing bets with a bookie on professional golf?