THE ETHICS OF GAMES OF CHANCE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] Stn, It is scarcely to be expected that I should acquiesce in the verdict of " quite wrong " contained in your editorial note to my letter'in your impression of July 27th; nor, indeed, on mature reconsideration, do I feel called upon to do so. Let me put the case as briefly as possible, thus. Your supposed player either plays with a desire to win the stake, or he is quite indifferent whether he wins or loses. In the latter case, the stake can procure him none of that pleasurable excitement which, according to the supposition, is his sole object ; for who can feel any excitement (pleasurable or otherwise) about a. matter to which he is absolutely indifferent ? But if he feels any desire to win the stake (be it small or great), so far he becomes a party to the one-sided bargain of which I spoke in my former letter as an immoral attempt to overreach. I might also argue that a case where "the loser loses less than he gains" does not come within a definition of gambling which insists on the necessity of one party absolutely losing while the other gains. But this need not be insisted on, because, in truth, your case is, I suspect, purely imaginary. Your player may perhaps delude himself into the idea that innocent excite- ment is his only motive ; but the gain may nevertheless be the true one, or why does he not "play for love"? The case is really analogous to that of the sportsman, who always pro- fesses to be only in search of healthful exercise, but never stirs out but with the hope of finding " something to kill."—I am, [It is of no use arguing in the abstract, when we have actual experience on the other side. The present writer, when he cared for games of chance, did prefer winning to losing, but also did prefer losing to not playing,—very much prefer it. And that we believe to be the state of mind of almost all players at games of chance. Winning- enhances the pleasure, but losing does not destroy it. To ask why a man who enjoys risk does not play for love, in which case he risks nothing, is hardly reasonable. Why does an Alpine climber who enjoys risk take so little pleasure in a mountain-climb where there is no danger P—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
