Gambling

[otseng]

For the past several days, I was on a business tip to Reno, NV. And needless to say, gambling is quite prevalent. In the hotel I stayed at, it had a very impressive casino.

So, I want to bring some questions up to debate:
Is it wrong to gamble?
Is there a point in which it becomes wrong to gamble?
Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?

[perfessor]

For me, gambling is wrong for the simple reason that I'm lousy at it!

Seriously though, it seems to be a self-tax on the math illiterate (Scott Adams). Then there are those who, in a game like poker, can basically always find someone at the table from whom they can separate their money - almost like legitimized theft.

So I'm going to stay away from it, and leave it to those who enjoy that sort of pain.

[Corvus]

For the past several days, I was on a business tip to Reno, NV. And needless to say, gambling is quite prevalent. In the hotel I stayed at, it had a very impressive casino.

So, I want to bring some questions up to debate:
Is it wrong to gamble?

No, it is wrong to lose. It's entirely a person's choice whether they would like to lose money to a machine or person. I never gamble, but this is not because I am austere, but because I know I will lose and I am good at exercising restraint when I must.

Is there a point in which it becomes wrong to gamble?

If one can possibly wrong themselves, then it's the moment when one develops a psychological addiction to it. Or, one can similarly argue that the odds are so opposed to a gambler winning that any form of gambling is a kind of theft, and thus wrong on the part of the people who set up these kinds of games.

Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?

Andre Gide says nothing about it.

[ST88]

Is it wrong to gamble?
Absolutely not. Gambling in and of itself has no inherent wrongness. For some reason locked deep within the reptilian brain, we get a kind of pleasure from making an arbitrary choice and then seeing if a random (supposedly) system agrees with this choice. It's a little thrill even if we lose because there is the power we feel about putting something of value in the hands of fate. The thrill when we win is a more destructive kind of reward if it is seen as a validation of our choice rather than as a stroke of luck. But gambling itself is a form of entertainment, and should be seen as such.

For myself, I often go to Vegas fully expecting to lose a certain amount of money. I see this as part of the entertainment of going there. I know I'm going to drop $40 or $50, just like I would if I were in San Francisco, buying a ticket to tour Alcatraz. It's an entertainment expense.

Is there a point in which it becomes wrong to gamble?
"Wrong" is an ill-defined term in my definition. People can certainly take gambling to extremes when they try to gamble to win. Gambling to win is inadvisable, irrational, and irresponsible. But wrong? The part that may make it wrong has little to do with the gambling itself. If you drop $10,000 in one afternoon gambling, how is that different from spending $10,000 on any other fleeting thrill?

Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?
On the contrary,

Ecclesiastes 9:11
"...the race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is the bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all."

This would seem to indicate that gambling is not only OK, but that it is the only thing you can believe in.

[perfessor]

Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?
On the contrary,

Ecclesiastes 9:11
"...the race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is the bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all."

This would seem to indicate that gambling is not only OK, but that it is the only thing you can believe in.

I wish I knew the author of the following: "The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong - but that's the way to bet!"

[ST88]

I was thinking about this and I came up with another evolutionary behavior that might explain gambling. See what you think of it.

Just like all evolutionarily acquired behaviors, this happened when humans were still nomads (or cavemen, if you like). For humans, there are two different kinds of food, vegetable and meat. For meat, you can either hunt fresh meat or scavenge or both.

Stay with me, please.
Members of the cat family rarely scavenge. Cats are affected by spoiled meat as much as we are -- they almost always eat freshly killed meat and virtually never eat vegetation (though they do sometimes "eat" grass & other plants, their digestive system does not allow them to obtain any nutrients from it). Members of the dog family, however, are true omnivores: they eat all kinds of meat and all kinds of plants. Dogs are not affected by spolied meat or food-borne bacteria, like listeria or botchulism, so they can scavenge with impunity.

Big cats, we know from observation, fail in their hunt about 9 out of 10 times. This meants that they have to make numerous attempts to hunt while they would otherwise be weak with hunger. What allows them to have enough energy to run down the 10th springbok after using up all that energy on the previous 9? Adrenaline. And it's not a rush based on the "fight or flight" instinct. It's the rush based on the cat's instinct to chase something down and kill it. If you have ever played with a domestic cat, you can see this in the way they turn their heads and ears and how big their pupils get when they see something they need to catch.

Now with humans. Our digestive systems also do not accept spoiled meat, and so the meat we eat must be fresh. Those societies with hunters that could bring down game both more often and more often while hungry would be more able to survive better than those that gave up more easily or were disheartened in some way by hunting failure. I'm talking about tendencies here, because there are many variables in hunting.

The particular thrill we get from gambling -- not losing a bet or even winning, but gambling itself -- may be related to this instinct for hunting in a way that is not always successful. That is, sitting at the one-armed bandit, fully expecting that the next pull is going to be the winner, gives us the same brain-chemical reaction as the nomadic hunter sitting behind a rock somewhere with an aerodynamic spear, waiting for just the right moment to try and bag a deer. In this way, gambling is a natural behavior based on a latent desire to hunt. Not to eat, but just to try to get something out of a system that is stacked against you.

Thoughts?

[otseng]

Is it wrong to gamble?

I would agree with the posts so far. There is nothing wrong with gambling itself.

Is there a point in which it becomes wrong to gamble?

I would say it becomes wrong when it comes at a sacrifice of fulfilling other responsibilities. For example, if a father spends money on the lotto that would otherwise be used for feeding his family, it is wrong. Or if some retirees spend their savings that would otherwise support them in their retirement, it becomes wrong. If they use their discretionary income/savings to gamble, then it is not wrong.

Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?

I don't know of any.

[Corvus]

Are there any scriptural prohibitions against gambling?
On the contrary,

Ecclesiastes 9:11
"...the race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is the bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all."

This would seem to indicate that gambling is not only OK, but that it is the only thing you can believe in.

I wish I knew the author of the following: "The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong - but that's the way to bet!"

My vault of knowledge (Google) tells me it's Damon Runyon.

I would say it becomes wrong when it comes at a sacrifice of fulfilling other responsibilities. For example, if a father spends money on the lotto that would otherwise be used for feeding his family, it is wrong. Or if some retirees spend their savings that would otherwise support them in their retirement, it becomes wrong. If they use their discretionary income/savings to gamble, then it is not wrong.

We talk about gamblers, but what of the people who are responsible for the gambling, some of which might be termed gamblers (as in card dealers in a casino), others of which have designed machines to gamble for them? Is it wrong to design or set up a gambling game in which the odds of winning are ridiculously improbable? It almost seems to cross the line and enter into the field of exploitation.

[otseng]

We talk about gamblers, but what of the people who are responsible for the gambling, some of which might be termed gamblers (as in card dealers in a casino), others of which have designed machines to gamble for them? Is it wrong to design or set up a gambling game in which the odds of winning are ridiculously improbable? It almost seems to cross the line and enter into the field of exploitation.

Good question. I would initially say no (though I could be swayed to say yes). Casinos, dealors, gaming manufacturers, etc are not in any wrong doing because they do not force anyone to gamble. People out of their own free will choose to insert a quarter into the slot machine. And in the case of those who are clinically diagnosed with a gambling addiction, from my understanding, it is the responsibility of casinos to prevent those people from gambling.