|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 11:32:49 GMT -5
There are considered to be more slaves today than at any time in history. And we have a new category of slave - sex slaves. These days we don't burn witches, but apparently we do burn races of people, and we wage war by the mass immolation of civilians. Yes there does continue to be slavery, and not just sex slaves. And yes, we still do burn witches in certain parts of Africa and other humans in other parts of the world, due once again, to religious beliefs that are harmful to the well being of others. However, it is illegal to own slaves everywhere now, so it's not a matter of making it illegal, it's a matter of enforcing laws that already exist. An interesting statistic is that a slave is worth less today than any other time in history. The Organization to End Slavery estimates that there are as many as 30,000,000 people enslaved in slave labor and sex trafficking presently. They do state that as a percentage of the world's population all forms of slavery are at the lowest they've ever been.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 11:35:08 GMT -5
I may have missed it, but have you stated what you feel drives morality? No, snow, you didn't miss it. I did a bit of a dance around my beliefs regarding morality in the last post but not so as anyone would be able to recognize it. What drives morality (yknot's perspective)? I attempt to integrate three different perspectives into my understanding of moral action which in turn informs my behavior. Perspective (1) is the understanding I derive from thinking about the analysis of "experts". By "experts" I mean individuals who commit significant portions of their cognitive capacities to understanding and explaining the concept of morality. The landscape of recorded history is dotted with these individuals; Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, John Stewart Mill. My primary focus more recently has been with modern academics like Pinker, Haidt, Paul Bloom and Laurie Santos. Perspective (2) is my individual awareness as a layperson. I reflect on and attempt to categorize my own behaviors, attitudes and tendencies. I am aware of my spreed to anger, detachment, preference to be the "power behind the throne", desire of "gray eminence" status, capacity to focus, inattention to detail, love of stories, and on and on. Not only am I aware of these behavioral tendencies but I am generally able to link each to one parent or the other and to see how they segregated among my siblings. I presume (with significant confidence) that they are genetically and epi-genetically linked. These traits are the phenotype of genes that are the product of millions of years of evolution. The second part of my individual awareness as a layperson are all of my own, personal and unique experiences through life. My experiences as a child, as a high school student, a college student, conversations in campus coffee lounges about Kent State, Cambodia, My Lai, faculty interactions, corporate assignments and interactions, marriage, divorce, children, grandchildren, sickness, floods, and on and on. Perspective (3) (This perspective relates specifically to transcendent musings which I prefer not to linger on for this conversation as stated earlier). This is my "what if" realm of thought. This is my aspirational realm of thought. This is the realm where I effort to get beyond my own ego, to get beyond the noise of the material world and simply ask questions like why, what if, if that then what. It is a quiet realm for contemplative searching. My morality is driven by an amalgam of these three perspectives. It is a mixture of empathy, compassion, prudence, reason, sense of fairness, concepts of human dignity, human rights and self-control. My morality is not driven by science. My morality is conditioned as much by reflecting on a young man and his friends strolling through endless miles of sand, tending their sheep herds, carrying a bladder of water and cheese and discussing the meaning of an idea they had heard the night before around the campfire by an elder reading some stuff from Proverbs as it is by picking up an article and reading about the latest research on neural networks of empathy in canines. Probably clear as mud, but a start. What do other folks think drives morality?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 12:24:03 GMT -5
Thanks yknot. That's a great start. I have to say that I am close to what you have stated above. Your first perspective I am taking to be based on readings of great minds and what they have written on the subject. I find these names scattered in this book and I have already translated Steven Pinker's quote that Michael has quoted in this book. So he is obviously also swayed by the people in your first perspective.
Your second perspective is also one way I have determined morality, my life experiences and their meanings to me. Right or wrong they have shaped my life.
I also deal in perspective 3 the what if's. I am more open to trying to understand things that so far have no explanation based in science.
I think that my definition of 'science' is our evolving brains in the areas of being able to reason, ask questions, find answers, find the answers to be wrong, and then change these answers when new data proves old data to be in error. That method of elimination of old beliefs for new beliefs based on data is how I define science. And in a sense, it is how I handle perspective 2. Based on my life experiences I have changed my moral understanding of the world since I was a young child professing in the religion called 'The Truth'. So when you say that morality is not driven by science, I struggle to understand what you mean by that? Given the definition that I am using and what I believe Michael is using, (the ability to reason and get rid of erroneous beliefs by replacing them with new data), how is morality not driven by this?
For me science has dispelled many myths and superstitions that have shaped our morality over the centuries since we became thinking, conscious beings. So why do you feel that science, (the search for truth with a process to make this happen), is not the driving force behind the changes we have made in these areas?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 12:31:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 21, 2015 14:54:46 GMT -5
All should watch this excellent presenation.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 16:55:57 GMT -5
. . . . . . .Houston, I have a problem . . . . . . .
Speechless? Nah, nobody would believe that!
I honest and truly do not know how to respond to the 30 minutes worth of the video that both of you, snow and xna, recommend. I promise, I will finish watching, integrity demands that I do so. But something is truly out of kilter here.
I will not launch into a response now, I am not sure that I ever will be able to respond rationally.
Honest questions, I would really appreciate very honest and direct responses:
Am I completely humorless? (All of my life I have considered myself to have a fairly decent sense of humor.)
Am I completely clueless? (I freely admit to not being very hip.)
Is my rhetoric actually perceived as THAT close-minded?
If what I have viewed so far is what passes as either rational or "scientific" in this day and age, it is indeed time for me to turn in my keys. Xna has posted many links to presentations like this for some time. I have watched some of them with incredulous interest but I will be honest with both of you, I honestly thought that they represented an activist fringe of skeptical thought. This video frightens me! This video is from CalTech, this stuff is mainstream, Wow!
One last thought. My response has nothing to do with any of the individual bits of information presented or even the way he chooses to characterize each data bit. No, that is not the problem I am having. My problem is that there is a complete lack of "critical thinking". Context, depth, analysis, alternatives . . . . just non existent. Hey, the guy doesn't like religion. The guy thinks religion is bad. The guy thinks medieval practices are absurd. That's all cool. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and entitled to express his opinions. But the sense I have gotten so far is that people are interpreting this screed as a legitimate critique on morality from a "scientific" perspective.
Sorry guys, can't get there from here. Guess I just have my head buried so deep in the sand that I will never be able to appreciate the superficiality of the new religions (Yup, I finally lost it. The frustration overwhelmed my rationality. I am a flawed human, incapable of escaping this ossified worldview that words have meaning and relativism has consequences.)
OK, now that I am thoroughly depressed, I will take a break and then return to watch the last 45 minutes of the video, hoping for a therapeutic moment of "Skeptics Insight". Wish me well.
Snow, there must be common ground here somewhere. Please help me find it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 21, 2015 17:46:51 GMT -5
If indeed it was church leaders in the Second Century (or whenever) who decided what books were to be incorporated into the Christian bible, and even what verses - then how did the Song of Solomon make it? The Song of Solomon is in the Old Testament, and was selected by Jews. The Catholic church had nothing to do with compiling the Old Testament. The only choice they made about the OT was which of the 2 Jewish compilations to accept.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 17:51:27 GMT -5
. . . . . . .Houston, I have a problem . . . . . . . Speechless? Nah, nobody would believe that! I honest and truly do not know how to respond to the 30 minutes worth of the video that both of you, snow and xna, recommend. I promise, I will finish watching, integrity demands that I do so. But something is truly out of kilter here. I will not launch into a response now, I am not sure that I ever will be able to respond rationally. Honest questions, I would really appreciate very honest and direct responses: Am I completely humorless? (All of my life I have considered myself to have a fairly decent sense of humor.) Am I completely clueless? (I freely admit to not being very hip.) Is my rhetoric actually perceived as THAT close-minded? If what I have viewed so far is what passes as either rational or "scientific" in this day and age, it is indeed time for me to turn in my keys. Xna has posted many links to presentations like this for some time. I have watched some of them with incredulous interest but I will be honest with both of you, I honestly thought that they represented an activist fringe of skeptical thought. This video frightens me! This video is from CalTech, this stuff is mainstream, Wow! One last thought. My response has nothing to do with any of the individual bits of information presented or even the way he chooses to characterize each data bit. No, that is not the problem I am having. My problem is that there is a complete lack of "critical thinking". Context, depth, analysis, alternatives . . . . just non existent. Hey, the guy doesn't like religion. The guy thinks religion is bad. The guy thinks medieval practices are absurd. That's all cool. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and entitled to express his opinions. But the sense I have gotten so far is that people are interpreting this screed as a legitimate critique on morality from a "scientific" perspective. Sorry guys, can't get there from here. Guess I just have my head buried so deep in the sand that I will never be able to appreciate the superficiality of the new religions (Yup, I finally lost it. The frustration overwhelmed my rationality. I am a flawed human, incapable of escaping this ossified worldview that words have meaning and relativism has consequences.) OK, now that I am thoroughly depressed, I will take a break and then return to watch the last 45 minutes of the video, hoping for a therapeutic moment of "Skeptics Insight". Wish me well. Snow, there must be common ground here somewhere. Please help me find it. Aw yknot, you don't have to agree, you know that. That doesn't make you wrong, or any of the things you have questioned about yourself above. You simply have a different point of view. And, that's okay. My views don't line up 100% with his either, but I do believe that our ability to reason and not have what we believe 'written in stone', is a good reason for why we have become far more conscious of what is good for the 'other' and therefore the 'right' thing to do. That is pretty much what we call the moral thing to do. We aren't locked into a certain way of looking at things because God said so and we must have faith that he knows what he is talking about. Instead we can try new ways of interacting with each other, asking questions and getting answers that might not agree with the Bible or the Quran, for eg. The current debate about homosexuality and gay marriage is an example of science teaching us that homosexuality is not a 'learned' thing, that it is biological and should not be viewed as an abomination as we are instructed to do if we listen to the world of religions who get this from their Holy book. You to have a good mind and you do like reasoning things out. Maybe that is the common ground? I guess I'm curious if you think that religion does a better job at determining morality? I think it contributes, but has it's limitations because of the example I have given above. Also, can you define why this video scares you because it is mainstream? What is it that is upsetting you?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 21, 2015 18:00:04 GMT -5
Snow, re slavery. This was a given in the ancient world. That it was a given does not make it moral. That's not a moral -- that's a wise statement of probability. That is not moral either. If slavery is immoral, you don't make it moral by improving on its immorality. That's not a moral either. It's nothing more than a threat to nonconformists. Morals don't change -- the only changes to morals is to adopt them or discard them. You don't make it moral by improving on its morality. And if you improve on anything to make it moral, it wasn't moral to begin with. Most of the witches burned at the stake were not witches, but non-conformist and submissive Christians. Are you suggesting that witches and slaves ever thought their status was moral? They undoubtedly suffered more than you do with the present failing morality in the present world -- maybe you'll enjoy it when it becomes worse.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 21, 2015 18:07:15 GMT -5
There are considered to be more slaves today than at any time in history. And we have a new category of slave - sex slaves. These days we don't burn witches, but apparently we do burn races of people, and we wage war by the mass immolation of civilians. First you say that we're better today because we don't have slaves. They you say that we do. You're quite right, and sex slaves (including in the US) are not "most" of them -- there are every bit as many labor slaves here as sex slaves, but it doesn't get much attention because it keeps the cost of consumer goods down. So since it's more prevalent now than in history, perhaps they enjoy their status
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 18:59:32 GMT -5
Seems we don't need institutionalized slavery these days because we invented credit cards! It was a 'given' there was slavery in the ancient world. The Jews themselves came out of slavery. We can't say that God condoned slavery or the status of women because God deals with cultures. Twenty years ago it was a given that marriage was between a man and a woman. It's still a given that people can race horses - but that won't last by the way things are going with animal rights. So if we change people's thinking about horses then some will say "But God allowed people to ride horses back then - where is the morality in that?" Jesus said "every generation is right in its own eyes." And that's so true. What I find immoral in our age is that lots of things once done "in a dark corner" are now out in the open. They have become legitimate. And we seemed to have crossed that line in the 1960's. ps That God himself sent people into slavery isn't a comment on God's morality. The New Testament God killed two million Jews and flooded the ancient world's slave markets with the rest. Jesus spoke about this judging of God quite often.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 21, 2015 19:14:55 GMT -5
. . . . . . .Houston, I have a problem . . . . . . . Speechless? Nah, nobody would believe that! I honest and truly do not know how to respond to the 30 minutes worth of the video that both of you, snow and xna, recommend. I promise, I will finish watching, integrity demands that I do so. But something is truly out of kilter here. What part of the video do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 19:55:22 GMT -5
Seems we don't need institutionalized slavery these days because we invented credit cards! It was a 'given' there was slavery in the ancient world. The Jews themselves came out of slavery. We can't say that God condoned slavery or the status of women because God deals with cultures. Twenty years ago it was a given that marriage was between a man and a woman. It's still a given that people can race horses - but that won't last by the way things are going with animal rights. So if we change people's thinking about horses then some will say "But God allowed people to ride horses back then - where is the morality in that?" Jesus said "every generation is right in its own eyes." And that's so true. What I find immoral in our age is that lots of things once done "in a dark corner" are now out in the open. They have become legitimate. And we seemed to have crossed that line in the 1960's. ps That God himself sent people into slavery isn't a comment on God's morality. The New Testament God killed two million Jews and flooded the ancient world's slave markets with the rest. Jesus spoke about this judging of God quite often. You have an interesting idea of morality and justification for immorality and I'm wondering how come it is more immoral to do things in the open rather than in a dark place? As long as things are hidden, fewer people know about them and then there is less of a chance of things changing for the better. When immorality is exposed, more people see the harm and start questioning it. That is how we slowly change our world to a better place. Questioning what we have always done and really looking at it to see if it's what we want to continue to do. Also, just what are we doing now that is immoral that has become legitimate? You say God made the Hebrews slaves. Does that mean you think your God approves of slavery? I'm not sure what you mean here. Also, does God not want women to be equal to men because he condoned women being property in the Bible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 20:20:19 GMT -5
By way of example. I know an old man who used to be the "look out" for a gambling den. Way out in an industrial estate, where "you could see someone coming for miles." Gambling was illegal because it was "immoral." Now it's legal - it's not quite "moral" yet, but pretty close. There's the message - in the open its acceptable. And there's no shame anymore. So now gambling is a social problem vastly greater than what it was generations ago - not because the criminal element does it but because EVERYONE does it. That's happening now with narcotics - the criminal element will always consume them, but now the non-criminal majority are smoking AND inhaling.
Nothing in both examples 'changed for the better.'
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 21, 2015 20:37:25 GMT -5
It was a 'given' there was slavery in the ancient world. The Jews themselves came out of slavery. We can't say that God condoned slavery or the status of women because God deals with cultures.
Twenty years ago it was a given that marriage was between a man and a woman. It's still a given that people can race horses - but that won't last by the way things are going with animal rights. So if we change people's thinking about horses the some will say "But God allowed people to ride horses back then - where is the morality in that?" Jesus said "every generation is right in its own eyes." And that's so true. What I find immoral in our age is that lots o things once done "in a dark corner" are now out in the open. They have become legitimate. And we seemed to have crossed that line in the 1960's. ps That God himself sent people into slavery isn't a comment on God's morality. The New Testament God killed two million Jews and flooded the ancient world's slave markets with the rest. Jesus spoke about this judging of God quite often. If god only dealt with cultures, why did he micro manage every aspect of the an individual's life with commands about how to treat slaves & the treatment of women ?
Just because something is/was a 'given' in any period of time does not mean that it is/was moral.
When Jesus said,"every generation is right in its own eyes," do you think he meant that it was alright to be that way for each generation?
Just because that lots of things once HAD TO be done quietly, was it really immoral or just because society didn't understand or care about the rights of people who were different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 20:49:58 GMT -5
When Jesus was asked why he didn't accept divorce when Moses authorized the practice he said "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted this. But from the beginning it was not so." (words to that effect.) The ordinances and judgments of the Old Testament were in part "because of the fathers." God had to deal with Israel as a whole in these things, as opposed to the one to one relationship He enjoyed with some. Thus God never wanted there to be a king in Israel, or for that matter, even a temple. Not so the moral law, which we still live under and which Jesus made more onerous. And sometimes things "which are given" are hard to discern morally. Was gay marriage "wrong" in 1980 and "right" in 2015? Is it still okay to subjugate domestic animals and pets, or is that now "wrong" too. It's a hard question, and very very complicated.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 20:54:34 GMT -5
I guess I'm curious if you think that religion does a better job at determining morality? I think it contributes, but has it's limitations because of the example I have given above. Also, can you define why this video scares you because it is mainstream? What is it that is upsetting you? So I took my break and I am now back to complete the task I set for myself of completing the Shermer video. Fortunately your post gives me a few more minutes reprieve, as we do some house cleaning. You ask "if you (referring to myself) think that religion does a better job at determining morality?" This question seems to haunt every step of our conversation. In my first post on this thread, I said; "First, all of my comments (unless specifically and emphatically identified as being otherwise) will deal exclusively with the physical material world that is amenable to systematic observation, measurement, and experiment. No comment that I make is to be read or interpreted as referencing any phenomena frequently and quaintly referred to on this board as “paranormal”I now realize that my comments attempting to set metes and bounds for the conversation regarding Shermer's premise were too long-winded, too obtuse, or not easily understood. Restating: I will not reference or be encumbered by any religious considerations while discussing the premise; "morality being (sic) driven by science”. I feel justified in this position based on the following considerations: Until established otherwise, I do not accept that morality is of necessity a contingency of religion; I do not perceive explicit or implicit linkage between Shermer's premise and religion; I perceive Shermer's premise to assert a specific relationship between morality and science (which I reject); I perceive religion to be an irrelevant "red herring" in a specific debate regarding the validity of Shermer's premise (earlier referred to as a non-productive off ramp). In a separate post I described my three perspectives on morality. Religion is a non-factor in all three perspectives. As a separate and distinct conversation, I would be happy to discuss the interactions between religion and morality provided it was understood that I am not a student of the topic, the topic holds little interest for me per se, and I would more than likely find more in common with a skeptic on the topic than might be expected. P.S. by way of clarification, I use the word religion to mean "a particular system of faith and worship". Finally, you ask why the video scares me. The video scares me because it takes two important topics for the continued welfare of life on earth, morality and science, and it trivializes both (in my opinion). The first 30 minutes of the video (nearly half of the presentation) is a polemical critique of pre-enlightenment behavior offered in a manner intended more for entertainment than instruction. The presentation lacks critical awareness, it lacks reflective judgment and it lacks scientific methodology or reasoning. A popular word in the modern lexicon is "bullying", in my opinion, this video "bullies" pre-enlightenment beliefs and values without obvious provocation. The "bullying" is particularly grating if the "intent" of the treatise is to eventually show the viewer that "science is the driver of morality" - please - don't insult me by suggesting that I have to go through some catharsis of mind and spirit before I can receive the sacraments of scientific truth! The reason it scares me is because contributors to this board are real and thoughtful people. I enjoy and learn much from interactions with most of the contributors on this board. We all get captivated from time to time by clever presentation on the www and it is fun to bat them around on the discussion threads. But this clip is more than that. This clip is mainstream. This clip is from Cal Tech and two people who I truly respect seem captivated by the message. That scares me. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. OK, hope with me that the last 45 minutes change my mind and thanks for the questions.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 21, 2015 20:58:58 GMT -5
By way of example. I know an old man who used to be the "look out"for a gambling den. Way out in an industrial estate, where "you could see someone coming for miles." Gambling was illegal because it was "immoral." Now it's legal - it's not quite "moral" yet, but pretty close. There's the message - in the open its acceptable. And there's no shame anymore. So now gambling is a social problem vastly greater than what it was generations ago - not because the criminal element does it but because EVERYONE does it. That's happening now with narcotics - the criminal element will always consume them, but now the non-criminal majority are smoking AND inhaling. Nothing in both examples 'changed for the better.' Gambling was NOT "immoral" accept in the mind of the beholder like yourself.
Why do you think that gambling is a social problem ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 21:10:44 GMT -5
Yes, gambling was right up there with "drinkin' 'n smokin'" if you go back to the `9th Century and before.
At a base level, gambling is immoral in a Christian's eyes for various reasons, including the idea that you can get something for nothing, you can take from another person, that you would consort with people happy to engage in illicit activities etc..
Gambling today is a huge problem. And with the internet it is out of control. In some communities the introduction of casinos has sucked the social and economic life out of them.
Previous casinos were more or less segregated from normal retail areas, but modern ones are quite sly in how they draw in the non- gambling population through restaurants, theaters etc.. In some you hardly know you have entered the casino. You see that in Vegas for instance.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 22:23:48 GMT -5
Oh man, I just finished typing my response to snow and xna having finished the video and as I went to upload it, I lost it somehow! I'm too tired to retype the response right now, I will send it in the AM. Sorry folks. My error.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 22:27:52 GMT -5
I know the feeling. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 22:29:47 GMT -5
I know the feeling. Alvin Thank you slow, misery loves company. And I wrote such a congenial closing, too, what a shame.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 22:56:04 GMT -5
I know the feeling. Alvin Thank you slow, misery loves company. And I wrote such a congenial closing, too, what a shame. Yknot, did you try right click and undo? And the back button? The new proboards is quite good at saving posts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 21, 2015 23:29:26 GMT -5
Yes, gambling was right up there with "drinkin' 'n smokin'" if you go back to the `9th Century and before. At a base level, gambling is immoral in a Christian's eyesfor various reasons, including the idea that you can get something for nothing, you can take from another person, that you would consort with people happy to engage in illicit activities etc.. Gambling today is a huge problem. And with the internet it is out of control. In some communities the introduction of casinos has sucked the social and economic life out of them. Previous casinos were more or less segregated from normal retail areas, but modern ones are quite sly in how they draw in the non- gambling population through restaurants, theaters etc.. In some you hardly know you have entered the casino. You see that in Vegas for instance. Well, so "gambling is immoral in a Christian's eyes"?
Does that make it "immoral" for everyone else?
You keep making statements like these: "Gambling today is a huge problem." "with the internet it is out of control. " "casinos has sucked the social and economic life out some communities"
Yet, you never give any evidence for you statements.
Do you have any outside evidence for this or is it only what you believe?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Feb 21, 2015 23:55:51 GMT -5
I know the feeling. Alvin Thank you slow, misery loves company. And I wrote such a congenial closing, too, what a shame. Aww frustrating. Love reading your posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 1:45:55 GMT -5
Quote, "Well, so "gambling is immoral in a Christian's eyes"? Does that make it "immoral" for everyone else?"
Most faiths have rather jaundiced viewed on gambling. Not much to commend it, really.
Stats on gambling? About five billion dollars in social problems in Australia alone. I Googled "Gambling problem" and this came up - "About 719,000 results" Look up financial costs of gambling. Look up social and family costs of gambling. Look up organized crime and gambling. Look up money laundering and gambling.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 22, 2015 3:46:31 GMT -5
Quote, "Well, so "gambling is immoral in a Christian's eyes"? Does that make it "immoral" for everyone else?" Most faiths have rather jaundiced viewed on gambling. Not much to commend it, really.
Stats on gambling? About five billion dollars in social problems in Australia alone. I Googled "Gambling problem" and this came up - "About 719,000 results" Look up financial costs of gambling. Look up social and family costs of gambling. Look up organized crime and gambling. Look up money laundering and gambling.
Now you are beginning to find sources for your statements. That is good.
Total Australian gambling revenue in 2008-09 was just over $19 billion and the share of household consumption was 3.1%
Does the financial costs of gambling out weight the revenue the the government takes in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 4:10:20 GMT -5
Quote - "Does the financial costs of gambling out weight the revenue the the government takes in?"
The problem with gambling, from a religious point of view (not to mention a mathematical point of view, too) is that it is a corrosive habit - one which has the potential, like alcohol, to be an addiction. All families of gamblers are at risk. To say governments can earn revenue from it, whilst some people are being destroyed by it - puts government in a bad light. A bit like taxing prostitution and having a pimp for your government. Some "used" to say that governments wouldn't ban cigarettes "because of their tax revenue" but that is happening now. No amount of revenue can compensate for the damage of smoking - I would suspect the same to be true for gambling. But by now we are WAY off tangent.
|
|