Gambling and morality
Our state legislature may soon be voting on whether to allow up to 2000 slot machines at each of the state’s four race tracks. If permitted, the slot machines would turn each race track into what is called a “racino”, thus giving casino gambling a foothold in Massachusetts.
Proponents of the slot machine describe it as a harmless form of entertainment whose time has come. Some lawmakers, seeking new revenue, see the device as a goose whose golden eggs will help to balance the state budget.
However, a federal study in 1999 found that people living within 50 miles of a casino were twice as likely to be problem or pathological gamblers. According to the study, these gamblers burden their communities with social costs that include unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, physical and mental health problems, theft, embezzlement, bankruptcy, suicide, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Everyone in the Sun Chronicle circulation area lives within a 50-mile radius of at least two of the proposed racinos.
I read recently that the leading opponent of more gambling in Massachusetts, Rep. Daniel Bosley, had said that his opposition was based on the economic and social costs of gambling, but not on moral arguments. While I agreed with his position, I thought he should not have given up the moral high ground, and began to look for moral justification for my opposition to slot machines.
I looked first to the clergy and found that the Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts oppose the slot machine bill. Cardinal-elect O’Malley once said that he would rather see church bingo banned than have casinos allowed in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Council of Churches, speaking for seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations with more than 1700 affiliated congregations, also opposes slot machines. However, when I looked closely at the arguments of the clergy, I found that they, like Rep. Bosley, focused mainly on the social costs of problem gambling.
Continuing my search for a moral argument against slot machines, I turned to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that the secret to living a virtuous life was moderation in all things. According to Aristotle, I would have to conclude that there is nothing wrong with gambling, as long as it is not taken to an extreme.
Then I came across two news items that gave me more to think about:
Item #1: In December 2005 it was reported in the Sun Chronicle that a woman with a gambling addiction had pleaded guilty to stealing over $13,000 from the Attleboro High School Band Parents Association while serving as its treasurer.
Item #2: In May 2003, William Bennett, a former Cabinet member and author of the bestseller The Book of Virtues, acknowledged that he was a high-stakes gambler who liked to play slot machines. Bennett denied that his gambling was a moral issue, that he had put his family at risk, or that he had a gambling addiction, despite press reports that he had lost $8 million over a ten year period.
While both stories troubled me, I still could not put my finger on what it was about expanded gambling that I found morally objectionable. Then I realized it was not just one thing, it was everything. Morality for me is not a set of rules etched in stone by sage or deity. It’s a nagging inner voice that asks, “What is fair? What is just? What is best for the common good?”
Massachusetts residents already have many choices if they want to gamble: the lottery, scratch tickets, Keno, simulcast betting. To go beyond that would be excessive, and immoral in my opinion, because of the additional social and economic harm we would inflict upon ourselves and our communities. Let Connecticut and Rhode Island choose a self-destructive path. We don’t have to follow.
Proponents of the slot machine describe it as a harmless form of entertainment whose time has come. Some lawmakers, seeking new revenue, see the device as a goose whose golden eggs will help to balance the state budget.
However, a federal study in 1999 found that people living within 50 miles of a casino were twice as likely to be problem or pathological gamblers. According to the study, these gamblers burden their communities with social costs that include unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, physical and mental health problems, theft, embezzlement, bankruptcy, suicide, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Everyone in the Sun Chronicle circulation area lives within a 50-mile radius of at least two of the proposed racinos.
I read recently that the leading opponent of more gambling in Massachusetts, Rep. Daniel Bosley, had said that his opposition was based on the economic and social costs of gambling, but not on moral arguments. While I agreed with his position, I thought he should not have given up the moral high ground, and began to look for moral justification for my opposition to slot machines.
I looked first to the clergy and found that the Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts oppose the slot machine bill. Cardinal-elect O’Malley once said that he would rather see church bingo banned than have casinos allowed in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Council of Churches, speaking for seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations with more than 1700 affiliated congregations, also opposes slot machines. However, when I looked closely at the arguments of the clergy, I found that they, like Rep. Bosley, focused mainly on the social costs of problem gambling.
Continuing my search for a moral argument against slot machines, I turned to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that the secret to living a virtuous life was moderation in all things. According to Aristotle, I would have to conclude that there is nothing wrong with gambling, as long as it is not taken to an extreme.
Then I came across two news items that gave me more to think about:
Item #1: In December 2005 it was reported in the Sun Chronicle that a woman with a gambling addiction had pleaded guilty to stealing over $13,000 from the Attleboro High School Band Parents Association while serving as its treasurer.
Item #2: In May 2003, William Bennett, a former Cabinet member and author of the bestseller The Book of Virtues, acknowledged that he was a high-stakes gambler who liked to play slot machines. Bennett denied that his gambling was a moral issue, that he had put his family at risk, or that he had a gambling addiction, despite press reports that he had lost $8 million over a ten year period.
While both stories troubled me, I still could not put my finger on what it was about expanded gambling that I found morally objectionable. Then I realized it was not just one thing, it was everything. Morality for me is not a set of rules etched in stone by sage or deity. It’s a nagging inner voice that asks, “What is fair? What is just? What is best for the common good?”
Massachusetts residents already have many choices if they want to gamble: the lottery, scratch tickets, Keno, simulcast betting. To go beyond that would be excessive, and immoral in my opinion, because of the additional social and economic harm we would inflict upon ourselves and our communities. Let Connecticut and Rhode Island choose a self-destructive path. We don’t have to follow.
--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 19 March 2006
posted by Charles Adler at 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home