Is Playing Poker Professionally Ethical?

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, here's where I put poker in the professional ethics scale:

Mother Theresa equivalent
Doctors without borders volunteer
nurse
public service lawyer
teacher
well meaning social worker
construction worker/waiter/secretary
telemarketing
amway sales person
corporate lawyer/businessman
criminal defence attorney
Poker Professional
slot machine maker / promoter, casino owner
pick pocket
nigerian scammer
white collar thief
burglar
mob lackey
POLITICIAN
contract killer

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

The straight up answer is this:

The deception involved in the gameplay of poker is not unethical. Nor is taking the money of people who choose to gamble with you and also attempt to take your money.

Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This only matters to people who care about what effect their actions ultimately have on the rest of the world. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all. I think that is a tremendous burden on society. People might dismiss this as entertainment similar to television or computer games, but poker is addictive, people end up doing it excessively, playing at odd hours, or spending time alone on the computer instead of with their partners/kids/friends. The idea that poker somehow makes players better thinkers and more competitive is laughable. This may be true for certain people, but for most people it's no better than playing solitaire or watching a game show. If that.

Even more concerning is underage gamblers. There are several on this forum that I know of. There was an article in the New York Times about the poker craze sweeping high school and middle schoolers. Kids this age should be out socialising, playing sports, learning. Instead, they sit in front of a computer screen, justified by the promise of $$$$$.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples. It takes players away from reality (which is a large part of its addictive nature)and provides false promises of gain. People miss out on opportunities for normal social interaction. And most players are losers, which has subtle effects on people's mentality. Television or other forms of entertainment generally don't do this.

3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker. You're taking money off others and providing nothing in return. Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession?

[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all.

The same thing can be said of much of the "work" performed in the world. Does the suburban couple living in a $200k house really need to have both parents working 40 hrs/wk, or do they do it because they want STUFF?

Even more concerning is underage gamblers.

Which is illegal, and thus not part of the equation unless you also believe that building cars is immoral because drunk drivers drive them.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples.

As does most any job. If this defines unethical professions, then doing anything requiring significant travel or significant overtime would be unethical, because that causes more friction amongst couples than probably any job aspect.

3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

So, by that rationale, every business near a college campus is unethical because it takes college kids money who could spend it on books (are you serious???). Also, people with bad business skills go into probably more debt each year than poker players, so is running a business immoral, especially if you're trying to beat the competition?

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker.

Is it okay to produce fatty hamburgers, sugary sodas, frivolous movies, video games, luxury items, etc.? If these are ethical since there is a segment of the population that is willing to payt for them even if they don't do any "good", then poker should be ethical along the same lines.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all.

The same thing can be said of much of the "work" performed in the world. Does the suburban couple living in a $200k house really need to have both parents working 40 hrs/wk, or do they do it because they want STUFF?

Even more concerning is underage gamblers.

Which is illegal, and thus not part of the equation unless you also believe that building cars is immoral because drunk drivers drive them.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples.

As does most any job. If this defines unethical professions, then doing anything requiring significant travel or significant overtime would be unethical, because that causes more friction amongst couples than probably any job aspect.

3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

So, by that rationale, every business near a college campus is unethical because it takes college kids money who could spend it on books (are you serious???). Also, people with bad business skills go into probably more debt each year than poker players, so is running a business immoral, especially if you're trying to beat the competition?

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker.

Is it okay to produce fatty hamburgers, sugary sodas, frivolous movies, video games, luxury items, etc.? If these are ethical since there is a segment of the population that is willing to payt for them even if they don't do any "good", then poker should be ethical along the same lines.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all.

The same thing can be said of much of the "work" performed in the world. Does the suburban couple living in a $200k house really need to have both parents working 40 hrs/wk, or do they do it because they want STUFF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Work builds the economy and provides for future development. It feeds, clothes, houses and transports people, and creates a functional society. Different ballpark. Poker creates nothing at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Even more concerning is underage gamblers.

Which is illegal, and thus not part of the equation unless you also believe that building cars is immoral because drunk drivers drive them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Different ballpark. You're not building something which is misused here. You're taking money off others for your own profit, and providing nothing of value in return. Some of the people you take money off are underage gamblers. You can own up to this, or not.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples.

As does most any job. If this defines unethical professions, then doing anything requiring significant travel or significant overtime would be unethical, because that causes more friction amongst couples than probably any job aspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jobs have other uses and provide net gain. Poker does not, as overall it is a zero sum game. Besides, the purpose of this paragraph is to point out the negative effects of poker vs other forms of entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

So, by that rationale, every business near a college campus is unethical because it takes college kids money who could spend it on books (are you serious???). Also, people with bad business skills go into probably more debt each year than poker players, so is running a business immoral, especially if you're trying to beat the competition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're being intellectually dishonest. By your reasoning every college kid should have a slot machine installed in their room, as it's no different to having shops down the street.

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker, you're not providing value for money and you're not giving people a positive or pleasant experience (in most cases).

[ QUOTE ]
Is it okay to produce fatty hamburgers, sugary sodas, frivolous movies, video games, luxury items, etc.? If these are ethical since there is a segment of the population that is willing to payt for them even if they don't do any "good", then poker should be ethical along the same lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying everything should do good. I'm not saying people are obligated to spend their money wisely. I'm saying if you care about the effects of your actions, which OP clearly does...these are the effects that poker has. It coops people up in front of computers. It takes them away from their families. And every time you win money, it costs someone else money, while providing no individual or societal benefits. And it rarely provides anyone with a pleasant or positive experience, especially compared to the alternatives.

Seems like a fairly dismal and unproductive way to earn a living and use your talents.

[BluffTHIS!]

My religious catholic view which I have stated before (and I play online fulltime) is:

1) Gambling is not in itself inherently immoral;

2) Gambling is only immoral when you wager money necessary to provide for your family or meet your otherwise just obligations (note that my bankroll provides for my livelihood and thus is not spending money necessary for it, and I don't blow it on negative expectation games);

3) Playing poker as a professional provides entertainment for casual players and is no different than being a dealer in a casino or for that matter an employee in any other leisure activity field or even being a salesclerk selling non-necessity items to shoppers who shop merely because they like the activity;

4) Playing poker is only taking unethical advantage of others when you either cheat or hustle gambling degenerates who can not afford to lose to play.

If you are not going to adopt a religious perspective such as this, then you might as well just adopt Canada Bill Jones' creed.

do you play poker?

If not, did you know this is a poker forum?

If so, then by your own argument, you better stop.

So, either way, I guess you're leaving now, right?

Or are you going to completely discard reason and argue that as long as you don't play *professionally*, then poker is okay? Such an argument would be saying that taking people's money at $10/20 is okay, but taking it at $100/$200 is immoral. Or taking their money 10 hrs/week is okay, but 25 hrs/week is immoral.

So, do you play or not, and if so, are you going to stop now?

[NotReady]

See

here

and

here

[JimMorris]

Thanks, I will definitely read each of these threads.

[Peter666]

Is taking a mortgage or paying taxes to pay off the interest owed on your country's debt moral? The answer is no. Interest paid on unproductive loans is called usury, and it is a mortal sin. The problem our capitalist society does not see it this way, and we must play along to survive (even though inevitably the system will crash on itself unless the government takes control). So the average American is actually contributing to an unethical economic system that amounts to stealing from the many so the very few can be incredibly rich.

Poker on the other hand is just a contract between two parties that is the moral equivalent of buying life insurance.