Topic:	Gambling
Audio:
	Download the Episode
	Listen Online  (Download Real Player)
Guest:	Will Barrett; Research Fellow, Australian Research Council Special Research Centre For Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics,University of Melbourne
What is it?	Rolling the dice in a game you're rigged to lose sounds like a bad idea. So why is it so much fun? Is gambling an exciting pastime, or a vicious addiction?

About the Guest

Will Barrett's philosophical research concerns the ethics of gambling, public policy, terrorism, rationality and luck.  His recent publications include:

• "Responsibility, accountability and corporate activity", On Line Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate, 25/8/2004

• "Gambling and Harm", Res Publica 12 (2003), pp. 13-16

‘Luck and Decision', Centre for Philosophy and Public Issues Working Paper Series, 13 (2003) [Forthcoming in Journal of Applied Philosophy]

• "Can we save 'problem gamblers' from the consequences of their actions?", On Line Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate, 24/11/2003

• "Betting on Belief", Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics 3 (2001), pp. 40-50

• "Gambling and Public Policy", Public Affairs Quarterly 14 (2000), pp. 57-71

• "What's Wrong with Gambling?", in Megan Laverty (ed.), What's at Issue Now? More Perspectives on Contemporary Australian Concerns, Melbourne: Oxford University Press (2000), pp. 56-63

Will is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) at the University of Melbourne, where he is also enrolled in a PhD. For some years he has researched philosophical issues associated with gambling, and has a number of publications on this topic. Other subjects he has written on include corporate responsibility, luck, rationality, retrospective law, and the responsibilities of the media. Will's teaching experience includes lecturing in Applied Ethics, Bioethics, and Political Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, and running business ethics courses for MBA students at Swinburne University of Technology.

Listening Notes

What is gambling? All forms of gambling involve risk taking, but is risk taking a sufficient condition for gambling? Gambling involves luck, but is luck a coherent concept? John introduces the guest, Will Barrett, research fellow at the University of Melbourne, to help answer these questions. Could a non-addicted person rationally choose to gamble? Barrett thinks she could, depending on what she expects to get out of it. John asks if buying a weekly lottery ticket is reasonable given that he doesn't think he'll win. Ken says that he is a lucky guy and he will let that belief guide his poker playing in the future. John points out that belief in luck seems similar to the gambler's fallacy. Barrett says we need to distinguish between gambling that involves some sort of skill from gambling that only involves chance. If you are able to employ skills of some kind in a game, then you can rationally engage in gambling. Games in which there is no possibility of using skills cannot be rationally played.

What is the difference between investing and gambling that makes one rational and the other not. Barrett says that risk taking is not a sufficient condition for gambling. Investment isn't a zero-sum game, that is, there does not have to be losers if there are winners. Barrett thinks that gambling is irrational if your aim is to improve your well-being by it. A caller asks if whether this whole discussion assumes that rational action is always best. Don't we do irrational things that benefit us all the time, such as having children?

Should the state advertise gambling? Is there a conflict between the state promoting the general welfare and the state promoting gambling? Barrett thinks so. Barrett lists several ways in which casinos try to entice gamblers into gambling more. Gambling sometimes leads to addiction and has historically been involved with organized crime. Does this mean that the state should ban gambling? Barrett thinks not since a total ban would likely lead to an increase in organized crime. But, he does not think that the state should promote gambling. Casinos hurt two groups the most: those who can least afford gambling and those who are addicted. But, states can get a lot of money from taxing gambling, so isn't gambling good?

• Amy Standen the Roving Philosophical Reporter (Seek to 4:33): Amy Standen interviews a doctor that treats patients for addictive behavior like gambling.

• Conundrum (Seek to 47:07): School counselors are required by law to report certain kinds of abuse, but agencies do not have the funding to follow up on most reports of abuse. In that kind of situation, what moral duties does a counselor have to the kids they are supposed to protect?

Additional Resources

• Website for the National Council on Problem Gambling

• Paper by Cynthia Janower on virtual casinos entitled "Gambling on the Internet".

• Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery webpage on gambling addiction

• Gambling statistics from the Department of Justice

• North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries page of lottery

• Wikipedia entry on "gambling"

• Webpage with detailed information on state and federal gambling laws in the US

• The Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno.

• Detailed explanation of the gambler's fallacy that John mentions.

• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "practical rationality". (Subscription to Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy required)

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "well-being".

• Online archive of the journal Addiction, which is devoted to the study of addictive substances and behavior. (Subscription to Addiction required) The primary focus is on alcohol and drugs, but there are many articles on gambling addiction.