Ethical Problems of Gambling - Research Paper Example

? Ethics and Gambling Outline Introduction Problems and Issues Associated with Gambling How the Perspective of Utilitarianism Perceives Gambling? Gambling at the Vantage Point of Relativism My Subjective Interpretation on the Ethics of Gambling References Introduction Over the years, gambling can be perceived with such popularity across most cultures. According to Ashley and Boehlke (2012), the history of gambling in United States is marked by early recognition and tolerance to prohibition to pervasive propagation. Some individuals consider gambling as a leisure activity in which they can relax and have fun. Nonetheless, for the others, gambling is considered to be parts of their lives in which it happens to be greater than harmless sort of fun. That is to say, it even comes in its severe form which is classified as a mental health disorder, the pathological gambling. Before addressing the issues accompanying gambling, it is deemed important to first contextualize what gambling is. Potenza (2008) defined the term as the act of putting the money or some valuable things at stake as to having a goal of possibly winning money or more material goods in return. However, the possibility of risks and uncertainty is always present because it is a game of chance. Its prevalence is undeniable because gambling comes in different forms. Blaszczynski, Walker, Sagris and Dickerson (1997) enumerated the forms of gambling as gaming, betting, lottery as well as speculation. Nonetheless, gambling has evolved along with the development of technology making it more present and available. At present, gambling can be done online like poker unlike before that it is just a face – to – face activity. Given that some of its forms are regarded as activities that have become socially acceptable and legitimate not only in the American society but the rest of the world, gambling happens to affect the behaviors of individual from having no involvement at all to highly involved. Shaffer and Korn (2002) stated that those who engage in gambling can be characterized as social, at – risk, subclinical, problem, pathological, compulsive, and in – transition. However, it is the case that an individual’s degree of involvement is shaped by the biological, psychological, cultural, economic and social elements. Given this, the focus of this paper delves at looking at the ethics of gambling. In the evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of such activity, first, this paper presents the problems associated with gambling. Second, its ethics is looked at through using the perspective of ulitarianism. Third, the theory of ulitarianism is contrasted by relativism. Finally, this paper concludes with my personal view of the ethics of gambling. Problems and Issues Associated with Gambling The reason why people engage in gambling is simple. People are putting at stake their own money because they can gain more money in return. Winning money in gambling is definitely good while losing money is otherwise. It is indeed the case that some individuals consider gambling as a relaxing activity (Blaszczynski et al., 1997; Ashley & Boehlke, 2012). However, the consequences can be indeed serious especially when it is not just about the losing of money but when it comes to a point of affecting the person’s life (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAHM), 2008). The problems and issues associated with gambling are varied from mild to severe. Some people casually gamble and find themselves entertained without suffering from any harm. The others are the serious gamblers playing on a regular basis though still consider the family and work life as the highest priority. However, unfortunately, there are some individuals who gamble excessively which then go through the negative consequences of gambling. According to CAHM (2008), the problems with overly gambling involve the physical, mental, financial as well as the social for it happens to greatly impact the work or school life through ruining a reputation or even for having problems with social interaction. Gambling can be addictive in a way that the gamblers depend on the activity strongly. In this case, they lack control over their lives but let gambling control how they behave. Hence, for Jacobs (1993), gambling can be an addictive disorder. This sort of high dependence on gambling can be considered as its most severe form. However, Petry (2005) as well as Ashley and Boehlke (2012) characterized these serious gamblers who let gambling have the power over their lives as those who are suffering from a mental health disorder called pathological gambling. According to Oei and Gordon (2008), the impacts of this sort of gambling are not limited to social consequences of having troubles with family, friends and colleagues, psychological distress, economic losses but also involve the risk of committing suicide. How the Perspective of Utilitarianism Perceives Gambling? The ethical theory of utilitarianism as a form of consequentialism considers the morality of an action based on the outcome. John Stuart Mill (1960) stated that utilitarianism considers an action to be morally right when happiness is the result. That is to say, there is the intended pleasure is present while pain is absent. True enough, an action can be regarded as morally wrong when the consequence to oneself is unhappiness which means presence of pain while lack of the intended pleasure (Mill, 1960). In this case, the rightness or wrongness of an action can only be established after weighing and identifying all its consequences. Given this, coming from the perspective of the utilitarianism, gambling can be morally right at some points but can also be morally wrong depending on the feeling of happiness or unhappiness it yields after all the consequences of the action are known. It can be morally right only if one finds happiness after gambling. As an activity, gambling is indeed pleasurable if money or other valuable materials are won. The intents of the gambler in the course of the activity are not important for the utilitarians. What matters most is that he or she gains money or material goods from gambling which of course, can make that person happy. The principle of utilitarianism considers that the gambling activity to be morally right even if the money is got from thieving if it produces him or her happiness, it is still ethical. However, this is the most simplistic way of seeing gambling through utilitarianism because there is a utilitarian rule which says that the activity must result to the greatest good for the greatest number. Extending such to the social level, the family of the gambler as an example, gambling is morally right if the winnings from the activity are contributed for the welfare of the family because everyone in the family is happy. As a gambling father and husband, from his gains, he still manages to pay the bills, purchase other necessities for the home, and give allowances to his kids. He is happy to do such. Likewise, his family is also happy with the consequences of action because they find gratitude from such money even if it is from gambling. Hence, weighing all the consequences of the action, everyone in the family finds pleasure from it. On the one hand, gambling is morally wrong when a person finds unhappiness from such. For example, he loses money from gambling and becomes overly dependent on it while his family and friends are likewise negatively affected from his gambling behavior. There is no pleasure from it but purely pain, hence, gambling in this case is morally unacceptable. Gambling at the Vantage Point of Relativism The perspective of relativism argues that there is no such thing as morally right or morally wrong because such ethical principle is based on a position that perceives the ethical judgments to be not universal but is something relative to a particular culture, traditions or practices of an individual or even group of individuals (LaFollete, 1991). That is to say, ethics of an action is dependent on the social norms governing a specific context. In this regard, the moral absolute does not exist. Given this very own principle that governs relativism, just like utilitarianism, gambling can be morally right or morally wrong. Though the distinction originates from the fact that judgment is grounded by what is acceptable among the practices of an individual, group of people, or their respective societies. It is the case that there are some people who accept it because it is entertaining, fun and can possibly gain money from it. Nonetheless, others think of gambling as not part of their acceptable boundaries. Hence, the ethics of gambling for the vantage point of relativism is notwithstanding the intention of gambling and also not considering the reason or intention for gambling. It is only ethical around the individuals, groups of people or societies which allow it. Undeniably, this excludes the religious groups because for them, there is no point a gambling activity can be right. However, for some people, even those who are religious, they do accept some forms of gambling like speculation and lottery. Likewise, others consider gambling to be morally right if done occasionally only. However, when it comes to the point that such gambling behavior is observed to be an addiction to the point it is now affecting the person involved and even the people surrounding him or her, or that it now happens to be a mental disorder, this is now the time that others consider it to be morally wrong. Thus, it is the case that there is no point of arguing whether gambling is morally wrong or right is pointless because there is an attitude of tolerance towards different cultures. For relativism, the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the existing differences of the moral beliefs across different cultures. Given this, individuals can adjust themselves accordingly on the cultural differences and same with the differences in knowledge and technology. My Subjective Interpretation on the Ethics of Gambling The problems and issues of gambling are presented. Its consequences are varied from no harm at all to just mild to even severe. And after considering both the perspectives of utilitarianism and relativism, my subjective interpretation is that both theories have weight in me as taking into consideration the ethics of gambling. Nonetheless, I think the perspective of relativism is much relevant on how I look at gambling as an activity. Gambling activity can be fun indeed. I can accept the activity as long as it makes me happy because it entertains me and even serves as a bonding activity with friends. Whether winning or losing, gambling at this point is a pleasurable act. Given this, it can be said that I see gambling in this angle based on the perspective of utilitarianism. However, the way I perceive gambling is based on the position that I consider such as acceptable based on the one’s degree of involvement on it. While for some, gambling is purely an immoral act. I don’t find such view on gambling. Apart from the degree of involvement, the rightness or wrongness of a gambling activity is dependent on what is at stake, the effects on the self as well as the economic, psychological aspects. Low – risk gambling for me is not an issue because the individual who gambles has control over him or herself. However, the instance when gambling is done excessively to the point that it damages the relationship to other people, loses finances and suffers psychologically, it is beyond my acceptable borders. This vantage point on gambling is influenced by the theory of relativism. Hence, there is no such thing as morally right or morally wrong because the ethical judgment is based on the social and cultural context governing the action. On the overall, how I perceive gambling is shaped by my social interaction with my family and friends. Both of them consider gambling as a form of entertainment, leisure and fun in which they engage on the activity only occasionally. For them, gambling is morally acceptable in this case. How I perceive on gambling may not be true for the others especially for the religious sectors who do not accept any forms of gambling even if it is just for fun. Thus, the moral rightness or moral wrongness of gambling is relative depending on the context. People are unique as having different social factors influencing their views on gambling that impact how they assess the act as morally right or morally wrong. References: Ashley, L.L. & Boehlke, K.K. (2012). Pathological gambling: A general overview. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44 (1): 27–37. Blaszczynski, A., Walker, M., Sagris, A., and Dickerson, M. (1997). Psychological aspects of gambling behaviour. The Australian psychological society, 1 -31. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). (2008). Problem gambling: the issues, the options. Canada: CAHM. Jacobs, D.F. (1993). Evidence supporting a general theory of addiction. In W. Eadington and J. Cornelius (Eds.), Gambling behaviour and problem gambling. University of Nevada, Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gambling. LaFollette, H. (1991). The truth in ethical relativism. Journal of social philosophy. 146 – 154. Mill, J. S. (1960). Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oei, T.P.S. & Gordon, L.M. 2008. Psychosocial factors related to gambling abstinence and relapse in members of Gamblers Anonymous. Journal of Gambling Studies 24 (1): 91–105. Petry, N.M (2005). Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treatment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Potenza, M.N. (2008). The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: An overview and new findings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363 (1507): 3181–89. Shaffer, H.J. & Korn, D.A. 2002. Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health analysis. Annual Review of Public Health 23 (1): 171–212. Read More