[gaze]

This is such an old moral argument. Do you think society should protect people from the nearly unlimited downside inherent to having bugs in human behavior exploited or do you think that doing this is wrong and that it's in fact immoral to stop people from being punished by their own bad decisions, because that's what they deserve.

[singleshot_]

I think society should protect me (degree in mathematics, non-gambler) from harm caused by betting companies in the form of increased bankruptcy filings for problem gamblers.

I think it’s immoral to allow their bad decisions to raise costs for those of us who do not care who wins the Big Game.

[kelnos]

In reality, though, it will end up being cheaper for society (and therefore cheaper for you) to just protect people from being exploited by others who know who to manipulate the human psyche.

There's a vague parallel with the homelessness problem in my city: I would rather my tax dollars go toward giving people stable housing for free (along with job placement, drug addiction treatment, etc.), because any other use of that money (clearing out tent encampments, jailing addicts, etc.) doesn't actually fix the problem, and ultimately costs more in the long run. (And meanwhile, the city is dirty and I feel less safe walking around in it.)

Sure, giving someone housing for free isn't "fair" to all the people who work hard to pay their rent or mortgage, but sometimes fairness doesn't give us (all of us, not just the people involved) the best outcomes. And it may not be "fair" to limit what businesses are allowed to "sell" to consenting adults, but I am willing to accept that some businesses will not be as profitable if it means society is healthier.

[gaze]

Fairness is the word people use but what I think they’re alluding to is adherence to some natural order of things, and that this itself is the measure of a healthy society. That might be the divine right of kings or it may be the order established by the invisible hand of the market. These arguments never go anywhere because it’s just an axiomatically different moral framework.

[JKCalhoun]

If someone goes into it eyes wide open, sure let them hand over the paycheck meant to buy new clothes for their kids. (Or not?)

When, as has been pointed out in this thread, people are instead being deceived and told the playing field is level, yeah, no we should not allow that.

[vintermann]

Well, that's a framing that the casinos love.

If you instead ask if people should be allowed to make money on exploiting "bugs in human behavior", whether society should help casinos collect on gambling debts etc, in short whether this is an institution we should allow, it becomes a lot harder to justify.

[personjerry]

To play devil's advocate, why do you get to decide what's a "bug in human behavior"? If they're happy about it... ?

[Teever]

This sounds like a productive path to take the conversation but it isn't.

Let's demonstrate that by just jumping to the end of this reasoning -- severely mentally retarded adults -- can they consent to sex? Why or why not?

[UltraSane]

An addiction to the dopamine rush from ALMOST winning is very much a behavioral bug that some humans have that makes them very susceptible to gambling addiction.

[kelnos]

We don't get to decide individually, but we as a society get to decide, via our (hopefully representative) governments.

This kind of argument is not particularly interesting; the entire point of a discussion board is for everyone to post and discuss their opinions, which will naturally differ sometimes. Asking what amounts to, "why are you allowed to have that opinion?" is pretty pointless.

[aquariusDue]

Is water addicting? /s

We can endlessly debate morality, ethics and all that regarding lots of things, but in my humble opinion gambling could be reduced to:

"Would people still engage in those games of chance if there was no monetary aspect to it?"

And then how many of those people who would still engage with them are "notorious" gamblers on whom those games had a clear negative impact (in most people's eyes).

[Kinrany]

This is easy to legislate at least: casinos must use play money that no one is allowed to exchange back for real money.

[rxtexit]

It is a stupid argument.

The choice is between the mafia or this. This is better than the mafia.

Any other argument is basically utopian.

I love mafia history though so I think many people just don't understand how powerful the mafia was in 20th century America.

Of course, it wouldn't be the Italians this time. It would be the Mexicans. A horrific thought.

[UltraSane]

The mafia never had smartphone apps for betting on sports and national advertising campaigns.