At 08:31 AM 7/5/00 -0600, Steven Bissell wrote:
>(snip most of this)
>John Foster wrote, in part:
>"There are no moral precincts to justify gambling with animals. It is a
>precarious endangerment of both the poor and the rich (their entitlements
>and their earnings)".
>
>Bissell here. Well, John, there are also no moral precepts (I think that is
>what you meant to type) *against* gambling with animals, or gambling at all
>for that matter.

Of course. That is what I just stated. There are no moral precepts for or
against gambling. Unless, however gambling is said to be vice, rather than a
virtue. 

A vice is a bad habit, i.e. a bad 'ethos' or practice. 

If gambling is a vice, then that is a moral statement about gambling. If it
is a vice, then it is morally wrong. If gambling is a virtue, then gambling
is morally right. Many folks partake in risky pursuits that are vices:
smoking, drinking, sexual adventures, and if these activities are risky,
like mountaineering, and so on, then they may become vices. I partake in
some vices and risky adventures such as winter sports and mountaineering. To
me the risk is not great enough to warrant avoidance. I would never pass a
law as a legislator without consent from my constituents to prohibit
gambling, mountaineering, for the simple reason that individual preferences
do not always lead to vices that are harmful. Environmental ethics makes no
sense at all unless the preliminary work of  'unconcealing' values and
sensibilities of the proponents is completed (simply values research means
determining revealed personal and impersonal preferences). There is simply
no justification that an ethics of care for the earth is required unless
there are concommitant values for the earth and it's inhabitants. 

As a legislator I would be careful and acknowledge that values and feelings
about the earth are not entirely rational, nor need they be. Greenpeace used
to have a lottery to raise money for it's work. We used to buy the lottery
tickets as a form of donation. We never expected a win. In the past the
Canadian government banned lotteries here, and the only ones that you could
buy were the Irish Sweepstakes. Since then the government now has it's own
lotteries here, and uses the money for good causes, including funding of
medical care. Personally I am not in favour of gambling casinoes here: for
various reasons, including the environmental and social impact. 

Some Puritans are very wise, some gamblers commit suicide. 

We need a Sweepstake for the Earth to fund progress towards sustainability.
I would buy tickets for the expectation of a dual value response: the earth
and someone wins. 

As far as environmental ethics is concerned, I was merely responding to
Steve Verdon who claims that gambling is simply entertainment. I cannot
disagree, and the statement that I made was that some forms of gambling with
animals are cruel. We all agree. 

Gambling does not make money. It simply is a service industry that
concentrates existing wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Only a very few
poor people actually benefit. Indeed the chances of winning a million dollar
lottery for instance is less than one in a million obviously, more correctly
one in several hundred million. 

As far as the average person is concerned, most people do not become
addicted to gambling with animals. Only a few become addicted, but the
consequences on these people is often devastating. 

As for your statement that I am a Puritan, I am not sure what you mean?

Quakers are Puritans, and they don't tip their hats to any one. And
incidentally my preferrd religious group is the "Society of Friends" or the
Quakers because they are non-violent, the originally opposed sect in the
Americas to Slavery, and the bomb. Maybe I am a Puritan. What are you a Pagan? 

I have never been involved in gambling, and I don't care if people want to
gamble their savings, but I certainly care if some one becomes addicted and
cannot quit, and I care about the animals that are better off left in
nature, rather than used for entertainment in gambling for the sole pleasure
of the rich or poor. 




 You may not *like* gambling, but that is not a moral case
>against it. As you your claim that "gambling does not make money," go to Las
>Vegas some time and try to justify that view. I agree that gambling
>endangers the earnings of rich and poor alike, but so what? It is a matter
>of choice isn't it? If I choose to endanger my earnings are you saying I'm
>acting immorally? That doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>As to gambling with animals. Not all of this is harmful to the animal in
>question. I agree that horse racing, dog fighting, cock fighting, etc. are
>harmful. But there are games of chance where no harm in involved. Kind of a
>funny one is betting on which square on a large board a chicken will poop on
>occurs commonly in the south. There are turtle "races" and cockroach "races"
>and frog jumping and all sorts of weird things people do with animals in
>order to make bets, and the animals are not harmed. Are all these morally
>suspect in your mind?
>
>And, what the devil does this have to do with Environmental Ethics?
>Sometimes John, you sound like a Puritan who wants to judge all human
>behavior by the same, constantly expanding, measure tape. You seem to
>disapprove of lots of things, mostly based on who is doing them. Rich=bad,
>poor=needs-our-help. I wonder if this simple view of morality helps the
>discussion of environmental ethics very much.
>sb
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%