[To nu Einroo or me " ferrar.ros."J
SIR,—Are you sure that there is not any abstract argument against betting except the argument of excess? Will you consider the following suggestion? If A makes a bet with B that a certain horse will win a race knowing (if it were possible) that the horse must win, while B does not know it, the transaction is of the nature of a theft. If B knows that it must win, or if both A and B know, the transaction is of the nature of a gift. Neither of the above cases constitutes a. wager. The essence of a bet is ignorance. A bet is unscien- tific, non-knowledgeable, and therefore the very antithesis of a perfect knowledge and understanding, which is the chief attribute of the Ideal of humanity, of the one Supreme Being —and for that reason we may assume that it must be immoral, " contrary to the divine law." Whether an aet is murder or justifiable homicide, theft or confiscation, adultery or con- jugality, depends upon the times, the country, the circum- stances, and varies accordingly. Betting and gambling have their sole being in ignorance, and for the reason above stated must be for all time and in all places " immoral."—I am, [How about a conflict of opinion P A and B each think they know what sort of weather it will be on Monday. Why should they not agree that the man whose theory is proved wrong shall pay the other a shilling P—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
