Is poker an ethical way to make a living? - Page 11

Bill C · #**101** 04-19-2005, 04:31 PM

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

IShark · #**102** 04-20-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.")

[/ QUOTE ]

By that definition Stalin and Hitler could well have been perfectly ethical beings. Do you really beleive that?

You say you are retired now so it's kind of hard to beleive that you have not thought up such a trivial counter example to your definition during your lifetime so far, so I guess I will have to assume you are being serious and literal here. In that case, is a professional poker player really fulfilling his or her "ought"ness to him or herself? Seems unlikely to me since even the average human should be capable of doing so much more (as in challenging) with their minds and so much more real (as in a real problem (e.g. make cars safer) as opposed to a completely artificial one: assemble some dumb people and figure out how to get money out of them.)

tolvan · #**103** 04-20-2005, 01:30 PM

I think we could see poker ethic at the small limits but I think we could see it nonethic at the higher limits because people do really play away their whole life, friends and money they own to players who are smarter... I think that most pokerplayers want to see poker as a entertainement buisness but guys common... really... It's all about stealing money from poor and dumb players. Poker wouldn't be fun if you loosed money. Playing poker for fun is winning money.. People get addicted because of the gambling prospect, you do realize that poker gives the brain same satisfaction as a cocainist. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Pocket Trips · #**104** 04-20-2005, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we could see poker ethic at the small limits but I think we could see it nonethic at the higher limits because people do really play away their whole life, friends and money they own to players who are smarter... I think that most pokerplayers want to see poker as a entertainement buisness but guys common... really... It's all about stealing money from poor and dumb players. Poker wouldn't be fun if you loosed money. Playing poker for fun is winning money.. People get addicted because of the gambling prospect, you do realize that poker gives the brain same satisfaction as a cocainist. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a grammar or spelling nazi like some people on here by any means but common your post is sooo full of errors i swear it must be a joke. If it isn't you must be the biggest cocainist ever!

BigBaitsim (milo) · #**105** 04-20-2005, 07:46 PM

Yes.

AKQJ10 · #**106** 04-20-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a grammar or spelling nazi like some people on here by any means but common [sic] your post is sooo full of errors i swear it must be a joke. If it isn't you must be the biggest cocainist ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Or a non-native English speaker. Damn furr'ners, why can't they just all learn our language? It was good enough for the Bible, and it's good enough for me.

Bill C · #**107** 04-21-2005, 10:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]

By that definition Stalin and Hitler could well have been perfectly ethical beings. Do you really beleive that?

You say you are retired now so it's kind of hard to beleive that you have not thought up such a trivial counter example to your definition during your lifetime so far, so I guess I will have to assume you are being serious and literal here. In that case, is a professional poker player really fulfilling his or her "ought"ness to him or herself? Seems unlikely to me since even the average human should be capable of doing so much more (as in challenging) with their minds and so much more real (as in a real problem (e.g. make cars safer) as opposed to a completely artificial one: assemble some dumb people and figure out how to get money out of them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it true that "oughtness" and "morality" are essentially the same thing? And isn't it true that morality is strictly internal? And isn't it true that morality can not be legislated; it must derive from internally determined values?

Your examples of Stalin and Hitler are shrill, emotional examples. And yes, they were ethical, to the extent that their actions were consistent with their moral values (or in this case the ABSENCE of any moral values.)

If a poker player has met his obligations and sees no moral impediment to his enjoyment of poker, then he is acting in an ethical manner by playing.

The distinctions you make in your argument are contrived and emotional as well. "The average human should be capable of doing so much more..."; "Assemble some dumb people and figure out how to get money out of them."

What the human is "capable of" is not a determinant of morality. If one has met his obligations, he has no moral or ethical need to add redesigning cars to his list of things he must do to be moral and ethical.

And your definition of poker as "assemble some dumb people and figure out how to get money out of them" shows your utter disdain for the game and the players, plus a complete lack of understanding of what the game is about.

IShark · #**108** 04-22-2005, 12:25 PM

Ok, you admit that you think Stalin and Hitler were ethical. I guess that about wraps up this discussion.

Goodbye and thanks for playing.

popniklas · #**109** 04-22-2005, 06:07 PM

I disagree with your definition of ethics. Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as actions that are, by fact, morally wrong no matter what people think about them. However, that is a topic for intricate philosophic discussion.

But what is obviously flat out wrong with your post is the statement that Hitler and Stalin did not have any moral values. Of course they had, and those where pretty strong indeed. (Although I would say that those values were highly incorrect.)