Gambling From a Utilitarian and Deontology Point of View - Essay Example

Module Gambling From a Utilitarian and Deontology Point of View Gambling from a noble and moral point of view is seen as an evilthat lurks after people and hooks itself onto them as they are addicted and unable to fight its charm. Many have even had to go for rehabilitation to be restored back to their senses so as to stop responding to the desire to gamble. This is not the case though with the utilitarian school of thought as it propagates that man takes action after considering what brings him the greatest pleasure. The Utilitarian system deems that gambling should not be banned as it gives happiness to those practicing it without necessarily bringing pain to anyone else (Collins 42). Deontology on the other hand leans towards the opinion that everyone has a moral duty and obligation depending on where they are placed towards others, and as they partake of any action, they should consider this moral duty (Sulkunen 158). This work attempts to go into details on gambling from a Utilitarian and deontological point of view. Deontological and Utilitarian theories do not essentially forbid the involvement of gambling as a moral wrong but they show a moral basis which one should consider when deciding whether to dive into gambling or not. The moral status of actions relies on the character of God i.e. what is right and wrong in the eyes of God contrary to Utilitarianism that reflects the will and desires of man. Deontology may adjudicate gambling as honorably wrong (Samford and Ransome 58). This is the case even in occurrences where nobody is hurt as a result of the act and actually successful results were achieved. Deontology submits that being honest is always right and mainly checks the action. Utilitarian school of thought on the other hand is seen as a hunt of one’s interests where one avoids pain and runs after that which makes them happy. Sometimes Utilitarian thinking cannot be avoided, but there are instances where consideration for other people should be taken up as a boundary so as to avoid purposely stepping on other’s toes to obtain one’s pleasure. Happiness is always a good thing and people consider it before they partake in an action or make the decision on whether to act or not. If there is something wrong in doing a certain act such as gambling, then this cannot be the purpose of pleasure as it should result into happiness. Therefore, gambling cannot be viewed as moral on the mere ground that people enjoy it. This is in accordance to Utilitarian views but there is the aftermath of gambling where a gambler becomes addicted. The Utilitarian proponent pursues the experience of the moment when the act is being done as it brings pleasure but they do not take into account what the gambler shall go through especially if they become hooked to gambling. Petrenko and McArthur in their work, High Stakes Gambling with Unknown Outcomes: Justifying the Precautionary Principle submit that, when actions done by people may lead to moral danger that should not be accepted, actions must be taken to avoid such harm (46). Gambling affects people of all walks of life, be they old or young, and this is irrespective of what their gambling is about. The problem is not the act of gambling that brings pleasure at the time but mainly its consequences afterwards. Gambling is tied with addiction and even violent scenarios that rarely end well. In the game of gambling, there is also trickery involved and this goes against deontological values that view for truth pointing out that one should keep their promise (Sunita 119). The case of gambling is one against honesty and morality on one hand and pleasure on the other hand. As a common weakness of human nature, many people tend to go more for pleasure and towards the easy way out as opposed to that which is moral. Deontology propagates an array of competing theories on what decides the moral status of an action, whether the action is right or wrong. These theories are significant as they show the basis on which people make decisions and what they perceive to be good ground for what is wrong or right. Gambling can interfere with a person’s home and work and it leads many to financial ruin. The impression that gambling creates is that one cannot cure the addiction though it is treatable. Addicted gamblers also known as compulsive gamblers are not able to control their desire to gamble even when they are aware that gambling hurts them and hurts those close to them. Gambling is all the compulsive gambler thinks about, it becomes something they cannot do without. The Utilitarian school of thought questions whether the act of gambling is more destructive than constructive. Jeremy Bentham one of the founders of Utilitarianism submits that a person should do whatever best contributes to their biggest happiness and the happiness of others but the happiness of the group would count more as compared to that of one person (Mill, Bentham, Austin and Warnock 73). Judging by the fact that gambling affects families and is destructive to relationships, then in this line of thought gambling may be adjudged to be wrong. A gambler may be happy while gambling but their family and loved ones are worried by the addiction or its possibility. Thus, the Utilitarian theory may reflect gambling as wrong because it does not bring happiness to the greater masses. John Stuart Mill, another proponent of the Utilitarian theory is of the opinion that gambling cannot be forbidden just because at the end of the day it brings people more sadness than happiness. This would not be substantial ground to term gambling as a bad moral act in which people should not engage. Mill is of this stand because according to him governments cannot forbid people to partake in actions that concern personal decisions because of the right to free will. Everyone has a right to choose to do what they wish irrespective of any of the theories because of the inherent will that everyone has. Therefore, whether people are convinced that gambling is right or wrong or it brings detriments or pleasure, they have a right to exercise it if they want or to refrain, based on their freewill. Many have asked whether making gambling legitimate is a right or wrong thing to do. Would it be making something wrong worse or making something that is economically viable and generating even better. Should gambling be turned in reality to good business from which people can earn an honest living? To determine this, people have to lay a ground that gambling is either wrong or right and it is either a productive or a destructive act. Gambling has to be analyzed and understood from the perspective of the gambler, is it good or bad for the gambler; does it contribute or reduce value from his life? Another perspective may be seen in gambling, as it is enjoyed by many people but the problem comes in when a person cannot control their urge to gamble. This leans more to the responsibility of a person and not gambling as an evil. However, one should be able to control over their urge. Gambling can be banned by law but people would still practice it in secrecy and, therefore, making it a crime under law would not be sufficient (Mill, Bentham, Austin and Warnock 168). The solution is to face the issue, determining whether the act of gambling is wrong or right and educating people on why gambling may be wrong or right and what action people should take as relates to gambling. Providing people with information on gambling and making them knowledgeable on its consequences offers a foundation on which people can arrive at a conclusion on whether to gamble or not. What leads a person to gamble? Some people gamble for pleasure, as a pass time, yet others are led to gamble by stress, depression or even loneliness. Gambling is like an art with possibilities at the end of the experience that go beyond normal commercial thinking. Chambers and Willox in their article submit that gambling is not a phenomenon that arose recently but runs from back in history and through traditions. The gambling sector is defined as a sin industry that succeeds and bears fruits (McGowan 29). Opponents of the gambling industry argue that it should not be justified and instead should be done away with as it brings harm to society. Governments attempt to regulate the act of gambling, for example, Britain’s gambling laws are for the purpose of preventing gambling from becoming a source of acts of crime (Spapens, Spapens, Littler and Fijnaut 174). The Gambling Act enforces that gambling is done in a free and fair way to everyone; open and just to all. The Gambling Act prevents vulnerable groups of people from being taken advantage of, for example, children. The laws fight to ensure the consumer of the service is protected and social responsibility is advanced. Britain also has a Commission to ensure gambling laws are enforced and to develop the gambling laws to areas that they do not cover. The commission also ensures that unnecessary measures that are banned in gambling are removed. Gambling businesses that operate without a license are illegal (Littler and Fijnaut 101). This is as per British regulations and is another way of regulating the gambling business. The Gambling Act controls facilities for gambling by limiting the opportunities of the business people that run gambling facilities. Countries restrict the gambling business from becoming a form of personal profits. National authorities have discretion to decide what should be done to safeguard players engaging in gambling games. Lotteries are controlled to maintain order in society; in many countries gambling games on television have been controlled as people at times lose a great deal of money engaging in them. People are warned to be wise before they engaged in such games as many have lost fortunes to the profit of the companies launching these games. Society looks at its common good in the advancement of any decision and act. Gambling should also be passed through this microscope; does it fit into the common good of the society or is it detrimental? Gambling is two sided as when it is controlled, it brings pleasure and could be positive. But its positivity is short-lived by the fact that when one gets addicted it becomes a huge problem to the gambler and those around them. Gambling is a good activity for relaxation but as a master it is foul and renders a person useless with time especially during its addiction. Then the issue of trickery is also in question; society repulses acts that are not honest. The issue of gambling is one that is hard to draw a line on as it seems to lean on both sides of good and bad action. A control measure should be applied and where it is detrimental, it be banned. If it can be performed for the greater good of the community and not warranting poor moral acts then it can be practiced; it requires a unique assessment for decisions on its appropriateness or otherwise are conclusively made. Works cited Chambers, C. and Willox, C. Gambling on Compliance with the New 2005 Act: Do Organizations Fulfill New Regulations? Taylor and Francis, 2009. Print. Collins, P. Gambling and the Public Interest. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Print. Littler, A., Fijnaut, C. The Regulation of Gambling: European and National Perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. Print. McGowan, R. The Gambling Debate. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. Print. Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., Austin, J. and Warnock, M. Utilitarianism: And: On Liberty: Including Mill’s ‘Essay on Bentham,’ and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. John Wiley and Sons, 2003. Print. Petrenko, A., and McArthur, D. High-Stakes Gambling with Unknown Outcomes: Justifying the Precautionary Principle. Wiley Periodicals Inc. 2011. Print. Samford, C. and Ransome,W. Ethics and Socially Responsible Investment: A Philosophical Approach. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2011. Print. Spapens, A.C., Spapens, T., Littler, A., and Fijnaut, C. Crime, Addiction and the Regulation of Gambling. Brill, 2008. Print. Sulkunen, P. The Saturated Society: Governing Risk and Lifestyles in Consumer Culture. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009. Print. Sunita. Politics, Ethics and Social Responsibilities of Business. Ganga Dhar, Chaudhary, 2005. Print. Read More