[Bill C]

It is interesting to me that with all of these replies and good thoughts, not a single person has made any attempt to define what "ethics" means, nor by extension, what "ethical" means.

Ethics is the study of choosing to perform acts which one should perform, and avoiding those acts which one should not perform. And who defines this "ought-ness"? Ones self defines what one ought to do and judges it accordingly, by his OWN internal system of values and morals. (As opposed to the law, which is not a matter of what one ought to do, but of what one is required to do. There is a major distinction between "illegal" and "unethical.")

It has absolutely nothing to do with any "contribution to society."

For me, personally, I am retired from a career of doing things that were useful. Now I play poker. I have determined that it's good for me, and doesn't conflict with anything I "ought to be doing." Hence, it is ethical for me to play poker. By my own definition; the only one that counts in determining "ethicality".

Some years ago, when my children were young, and I had obligations to raising them properly (ie I "ought to take proper care of my children") then it was ethical for me to play, providing I was still able to do the things I felt I "ought to do." I am not a good enough player to do that with poker, so I would have been doing something I ought not do if I gave up my work to play poker. And that would have been "unethical."

Just my $.02 worth, having survived a Jesuit education...

bc