Matthew's Journal

I've never understood why gambling is considered immoral by so many people. I've tried to look it up and stuff but nothing very promising comes up.

moral system derived on some other principle> morals *are* to a certain extent a combination of consensus and utilitarianism, but there are cultural aspects too. In a multicultural society you have to be careful about making sure any laws based on cultural morals are accepted by consensus, at least to a certain extent. That culture can include religion(s) but isn't necessarily religion alone.

Gambling is generally weird and I find I can't form a useful opinion on it. On the one hand, I don't see anything obviously immoral about a bet entered into freely by both parties in full understanding of the arrangement, and they can very easily be fun, instructive, and a valuable part of personal social interaction. (cf in particular IWJ's bet with senji concerning the release date of Debian woody, which I'm still not convinced didn't influence the actual release date favourably :-) On the other hand, gambling seems to attract more than its fair share of fraud, swindlers, outright crime, compulsive behaviour, fallings out between friends and other diverse undesirable phenomena, so I can see a utilitarian argument for deciding you want none of that. But none of it is obviously a necessary consequence of gambling, so it's hard to argue that gambling itself should be outlawed instead of the various undesirable phenomena.

I think one of the most difficult questions in lawmaking is to what extent it's reasonable to restrict something which is perfectly reasonable in itself when your actual target is something which is imperfectly correlated to it but (for whatever reason) out of the direct reach of the law.

I would say `religion' not `my religion'. I did not choose `my personal morality' because that lacks (potentially at least) any wider frame of reference. Even saying my religion is less problematic as religion to me at least has a corporate element.

On gambling, I'm not sure. Strict Methodists (used to?) take the line that even buying raffle tickets was gambling and therefore to be avoided. I wouldn't go that far, but gambling in a more serious sense causes all sorts of problems. Corruption in sport and major problems for those who become addicted (as a childhood friend of mine did). I am not happy about the prospect of allowing supercasinos for that reason, but on the other hand, think that an outright ban has the potential for more problems because it is unlikely to stop people gambling but rather to send it underground. Therefore, the pragmatist in me wants to allow some, but strictly controlled but I certainly don't think it should be promoted which is why I dislike the recent Gambling Act (or is it still only a Bill).

On reasons to make laws, I think that a mixture of religion (or other value system), utilitarianism (though not in a strict Bentham/Mill sense, but in the what makes society able to tick along sensibly) and consensus are needed. It's not one on its own. Law is about making society work. I think for it to work there is some need for a generally agreed value system. I think this is one of the problems with `secularism', it does actually have values (tolerance, value for the individual, meritocracy) but thinks that tolerance/relativism means hiding these things because there are no universals. There is then a conflict between what they say and what they do and there are complaints about illiberal liberals. I think the recent veil wearing debate has highlighted some of the issues here.

I think laws are generally in place to make sure that one's actions don't infringe upon another person's freedoms. Within a reasonable extent, of course. But most are designed towards limiting destruction (and thus anarchy); ensuring the greatest amount of personal freedom that doesn't involve restricting someone else's personal freedom.

That's a large part of why I think religion and law need to be kept far, far away from each other. Religions involve their own sets of religious law which may or may not be analagous or even appropriate in a changing society, particularly one including a number of religions and thus inevitably conflicting religious beliefs. Granted, my own foremost reliegious belief is centered upon respect for others' beliefs, so that's something of a self-fulfilling prophesy and thus hypocritical.

But also religious laws (being connected to faith) should, in my opinion, be a matter of personal choice and testing, kept between one and one's God and not punishable by earthly officials. If they also are illegal for other reasons as well (see above), so be it, but they shouldn't become illegal solely because they are immoral by the tenets of one's religion.

I'm not sure I'm putting any of this well.

Laws by which a society is governed should be based on the consensus of that society. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Certainly if that society was largely religious, and they agreed on what the morality of their religion was, then it's perfectly fair that they should make laws based on that morality. But that's the same as consensus, isn't it?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meanings of the various terms, which would be likely, I don't normally take part in this kind of debate!

If I'm required to assume Gambling is against my religion, I think it depends *why*. If there is a good reason to ban it I don't know because no-one's told me, maybe so. If because it causes a lot of harm, then maybe so. If because it's just "wrong" then I suppose I would want to ban it (though may still find it impractical) but I have extreme difficulty imagining this position.

I think making laws is a horrible compomise ("society") between imposing our morality on others whereever possible, and accepting that we having differing views and it's better to agree to differ even than accept the greater harm of having wars about it.

Eg. If most people agree murder is wrong, we impose that view on everyone. People should and have fought to make this law.

Eg. I think killing animals is wrong (but not as much wrong and often necessary), and think everyone else is mad, and would like to impose those views on everyone, but there's no way I can do this without causing more suffering than it would prevent. And in return other minorities that want to ban, eg. gay sex, also don't do so.

If you imagine society as an island with three people on, it's all quite clear :)

The ethical principle of primum non nocere, do no harm. Which isn't the same as utilitarianism (least harm), but laws against murder can be justified either way. Preventing people from murdering other people is an example of the law as an arbiter between parties, preventing one party from infringing the other's rights.

Buddhist ethics are clear that gambling harms the gambler. I agree, so I think that we'd be better off if it was illegal. However, I don't think my personal Buddhism is a good basis for lawmaking so I think this type of law (preventing people from harming themsleves) has to come from consensus.

I work on the general principle that people should be allowed to do anything that doesn't affect other people.

So, murder is bad because you're affecting someone by killing them.
Gambling is not bad because the people involved in the gambling transaction know what they're doing and the consequences, and it doesn't affect other people. If there are consequences of gambling that are harmful you could legislate against them but I don't think you should legislate against gambling all together. It's like drinking alcohol - drinking is legal but driving while drunk is illegal.

1st Corinthians: Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial.

I thought that unlawfulness was one of the essential characteristics of murder [i.e. as distinct from other kinds of homicide], not just in law but usually in common parlance too.

I don't think that gambling is inherently immoral, but can't help noticing that an awful lot of the time wrongness ends up associated with it. My instinctive preference is for regulation rather than prohibition, though I couldn't say that I know for sure that one approach leads to a better overall outcome than the other.

The next question seems to really about sources of law, rather than reasons to make law.

I don't believe that immorality is a good incentive to make something illegal.

Also, gambling (if immoral) is a different sort of immorality to murder.

Also, for the third question, my answer is something like "based on consensus morality" or something.

I think that ideally, I'd go for a version of consensus based on Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, i.e. people should "vote" for the outcome they would choose if they didn't know what their status was going to be in the new legal order. It means people have to imagine they don't know whether they're going to be a murder victim or a murder suspect, a gambler or someone a gambler might steal from, and so on. Rawls thought that people in that situation would tend to choose the law that leads to the best outcome for the worst-off. The problem with it, of course, is that it's an extremely difficult thought experiment to run, especially if you apply it to, say, abortion (as Rawls does, I think) and have to try to imagine that you don't know whether you're a foetus or a pregnant woman. I do find that running the experiment sometimes makes me stop in my tracks and rethink something, though.

I like Rousseau's model of the Social Contract and Weber's concept of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

I think my freedom to murder should be constrained because I don't want other people murdering me; although I'm equivocal about the morality of gambling, I don't want it made illegal because I don't care if other people gamble at me.

This is a complex one.

I'd be generally sympathetic to the principle that the State should not interfere in matters of 'private morality' - that is, on matters involving consenting adults that do not impinge upon the freedoms of others. However, this principle does not give rise to a hard and fast boundary as to what should or should not be a matter of law.

I also do not believe it is either possible or desirable to exclude religion, or any other philosophical or moral belief, as the basis for debate on lawmaking. If a person has a faith, then it will to some degree or other affect all aspects of their thinking. You cannot say "That is a religious motivation so it is to be excluded from public debate" and "That is a secular motivation, so that is OK." But if a person of a particular religious belief cannot convince people of different beliefs - or who do not think that their religion should be the basis of the law - then they will likely not get very far.

The problem with the 'private morality' criterion, or its conrapositive, the Millsian principle of allowing freedom except where it impinges on the freedom of others, is that there is no general agreement on what constitutes an impingement on others of sufficient magnitude to become a subject for legislation.

Firstly, there is no agreement on who should constitute an 'other' that is protected by this principle. Is a foetus an 'other'? Is an animal, or to what extent? A person may be guided by religious belief in their opinion on either of these, but athiests may also come to the full range of conclusions on these.

Then there are other unclear boundaries; for example, gambling, smoking, drinking, drug-taking, which are consensual activities, but which are subject to addiction, with potentially considerable damage involved - thus the 'freedom of choice' of people engaged in these activities becomes impaired. Though the first three are not illegal here, they are subject to particularly high levels of taxation.

Then there is the whole thorny question of activities that 'cause offence'. Now I most certainly do not believe in a right not to be offended, and I certainly do believe that people should have the right to, for example, wear whatever they like, put on whatever plays and films they like, hold hands in public with whoever they like, and so on. But what about having sex in public? This is illegal, and while I think that open-air sex in reasonably secluded locations isn't a problem, I don't think many people would be happy with allowing people to get it on in the middle of the street. But this is an entirely consensual activity that doesn't hurt others except insofar as it may cause 'offence'.

Then again, things like tax and social spending are matters which impinge on people's freedoms, which benefit some and harm others, and where religion may again be one motivation in either direction, but so may many other things.

I certainly don't think that 'it's immoral' is a sufficient reason for banning something - you have to say what you mean by immoral, and why it is immoral, and what are the consequences of this immoraliy being permitted, and for whom. There are certainly things that I would consider immoral that I would not want legislated against, e.g. cheating on your partner. But my understanding of 'morality' - specifically Christian morality - at some level will come into my views on most matters of legislation and public policy.

So, in short, I don't think that you can draw up a list of things which should or shouldn't be the basis of law. Hence I ticked just about all the boxes. Everyone will have their own particular mix of motivations, but everyone will also have a different conception of what is 'private', what is 'public' and so forth. There should be free and open debate - though for honesty's sake, people should be clear about where they're coming from. So if someone's sole or primary motivation for banning something is that it is written in the Sacred Scrolls of the Great Prophet Zarquon that it is an abomination, then they should say so, and others can draw their conclusions accordingly.

I find it quite hard to answer your poll because of some of the ways things are phrased. (That's not a complaint, it's hard to do a poll that means something, but for which everyone has a precise category).

Murder is (in the way it's discussed, rather than a legal definition), essentially, immoral death, as far as I can tell. You can make up lots of things to do with implied consent to deal with, for example, transport accidents, but that seems to me to be a cover woven over your own particular ideas of what makes a death immoral or otherwise. If the law is out of step with this, then I suspect the law changes, rather than the perception.

I'm not sure I have very strong opinions on what should be illegal. It kind of depends on what the purpose of it is. It's an odd thing: its purpose drifts with its methods, and its methods with its purpose; it's quite an unrooted idea.

In some theocracies, one of the things illegality is used for is to encourage/cajole (delete as inclined) people into keeping inline with a religion, so clearly in that world, immoral things should be illegal.

But in some exciting mythical atheist state, presumably illegality wouldn't be used for such a purpose, it would probably be used for the opposite.

It all depends on the (internal) state you're in, and the (political) state you're in, and how much control or influence you have, or should have, over the social-machine-that-is-called-illegality.

I'm in a bit of a dilemma with the poll. As far as I can tell what you mean by "immorality" depends on your religion: I could answer it as if I were a Christian (but I don't think you're asking that), but I don't think it makes sense to just add those two things as "immoral" to any beliefs I have, because the concept doesn't transfer easily. And whether immorality should be reflected in illegality is a function of political as well as religious belief, I think.

Sorry about that. I know it's annoying to have awkward people objecting to categories.

If gambling is wrong:
- is taking out an insurance policy (life, house, car, other) wrong?
- is taking out an annuity wrong?
- is not taking out an insurance policy wrong?
- is not taking out an annuity wrong?