Are Gamblers Really That Bad?
By: Soteris Phoraris
Tags: Ethics, Morality, Gambling

We all have a mental reference of the infamous ‘Gambler’. Some go the noir route: whiskey-swilling, cigar-chomping, fedora-wearing with a voice that sounds like he gargles razor-wire and lava. Others might prefer the cowboy variation: dusty, always quick to accuse their poker partners of cheating and quicker to draw their six-shooter.

What is universal no matter what version of “The Gambler” you see in your mind’s eye — is that they are degenerates, scoundrels and societal leeches.

But hear me out — maybe Gamblers aren’t as bad as most people think.

Gamblers Are (Biblically) Bad?

Most people think that gambling is a sin as delineated by their holy book of their choice.

Funny enough, gambling isn’t explicitly called out in the Bible (for example) — here are a few verses to prove that. What is bad is the love of money. And I know people that have a much more amorous relationship with currency than gamblers. If you really think about it, gamblers don’t even love money that much, most gamblers are fully aware that their money is on the line.

The Catholic church, arguably the strictest types of Christianity, in fact doesn’t even condemn gambling (its frowned upon, but isn’t everything frowned upon?). They condemn condoms but not games of luck…hold on, isn’t unsafe sex a game of luck? A Russian Roulette of Pregnancy and STIs? OK I think I get it now. There are only a few religions that outright prohibit gambling including Methodists, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims.

What if the Gambler’s love for money follows the idiom “If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it’s yours. If not, it was never meant to be.”?

Actually, let’s ignore that since it complicates my argument.

Just for fun what does the Bible explicitly prohibit?

· Cheeseburgers — meat and dairy combinations are a no, no

· Wearing blended fabrics — and as such crossfitters are doomed to eternal damnation — is this the reason disco died?

· Planting two different types of seed in the same field — um….WHY?

· Finally, this strange word-math problem — edible animals must have divided hooves and chew cud but if they have divided hooves and don’t chew cud it’s a biblical no-go oooor if they chew cud but doesn’t have divided hooves then munching on one such furry will lead to eternal damnation (yes, again). This is especially problematic in modern society considering most if not all supermarkets ensure no hooves are left on the delicious sin they sell.

Interesting sidenote — if you see a giraffe, grab your barbeque sauce because its ingestion is sanctioned by the Bible. It is of the few animals that are explicitly noted as ok to eat.

Did you hear that Maurice?

It Actually Helps

There are various places around the world, that condemn gambling with one scraggily finger, but stick out their other hand for that sweet, sweet sinful gambling tax money. The most famous hub of legal gambling — Las Vegas, Nevada — charges gamblers an insane 25% tax rate on all winnings. Not only are the individual luck-hunters charged, but so are the casino owners since they’re legitimate businesses. The $1.4 Billion that flows into Nevada’s coffers from Casinos accounts for 42% of the state’s revenue.

For a point of comparison, the “Other Tobacco Tax” (another sinful but profitable tax) only creates $13.1 million.

So why all the hate? Well gambling — especially pathological or degenerate gambling as it’s known — undoubtably causes societal ills. Job loss, broken homes, financial exploitation (usually of the gambler’s family) are all parallel effects of those infatuated with Lady Luck.

I’m not trying to discredit this serious type of addiction or the negative effects it has on the people that are close to it.

What I am saying is considering the Gambler doesn’t affect anyone — i.e. he/she has no kids, no spouse or doesn’t financially exploit someone — then where is the evil? I know this is a controversial topic but let’s say everyone at the table is the same, then who do they really hurt? And it wasn’t like they were unaware right?

Is it the same as the company (or companies actually) that sold off waste-dioxin without informing the person disposing of it that it was toxic (allegedly, I don’t want to be sued)? Here’s the story here. Or Bernie Madoff who caused people’s life savings and retirement funds to evaporate. Oh, and millions in charitable funds. No “allegedly” because he’s in jail for it.

Personal to Large Scale

I don’t know how we got here, but you have to admit it was a hell of a ride; now we are wandering into the area of moral ambiguity and ethics.

Here’s a simple morality question:

Who is wickeder? Someone that steals from one person compared to someone that steals from many. Let’s make it a completely clinical example: the only motivation is to take something from someone else. There’s no morally justifiable reason — like survival or the greater good. Both people’s action is stealing, one’s is just on a bigger scale.

Who would you consider worse? Someone who plays a game with money on the line — with other consenting adults or someone (like Bernie Madoff) that literally has caused many people irreparable financial damage.

And just to end it on a controversial note — tell me how a gambler is worse than the people that caused the 2008 financial crisis?