The Ethics of Gambling

TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 39(3), 2014: 453–486
ISSN (print): 0250–8281/ISSN (online): 2320–0308
©2014 Tourism Recreation Research
http://www.trrworld.org
Research Probe
Ethics of Gambling?
Context
Gambling is one of the most controversial leisure activities in
contemporary society. Despite its far-reaching popularity, many negative
cultural and social implications have been attributed to gambling. In
contrast, numerous destinations look to legalization and expansion of
gambling businesses to rejuvenate their declining economies, particularly
in times of escalating competition between tourism destinations.
Nevertheless, in the lead essay of this research probe, Amir Shani argued
that with respect to gambling studies, tourism scholarship has overly
focused on cost-benefit analyses and residents' attitudes toward
gambling, while neglecting imperative philosophical questions that are
essential in addressing the ethics of gambling. Shani presents an ethical
assessment of gambling, which evaluates the strengths, validity and
accuracy of some of the prominent ethical arguments against its
legalization. His conclusion is that the anti-gambling position cannot be
ethically justified, as its application substantially infringes upon
fundamental individual rights and civil liberties, and allows for the use
of excessive authority of society over the individual. The responses by
Chhabra and Fong, Leung and Law suggest a pragmatic approach,
according to which the focus should be directed on developing means
to mitigate or minimize the gambling-related externalities and the
unethical expressions of gambling. The third respondent, Belle Gavriel-
Fried, contributed to the research probe by providing an intriguing
analysis of the social, political and economic forces that drive the gambling
discourse and the various positions on the subject matter. Shani addresses
these rejoinders by asserting that despite of their valuable contribution,
an ethical discussion on legalization of gambling cannot be truly
comprehensive without the consideration of broader philosophical issues.
This exclusive department is created to include findings of special significance and to identify
areas of subtle research nuances through mutual debates, discourse and discussions. Elenctic
method is used wherein knowledge progresses through articulation, cross-examination and
rejection of spurious hypotheses. Thus, probe aims at encouraging scholars to think against
the grain by unmasking the stereotype and dogmatic that has taken the mould of research
conservatism. Contact the Editor-in-chief for more details.

The Ethics of Gambling: Shani et al.
454 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 3, 2014
Introduction
Despite considerable popularity in many
nations and prominent tourism destinations,
casino gambling remains a contentious issue.
Ethical and political debates engulf virtually
every attempt to legalize or expand casino
gambling. As noted by Eadington (2001),
‘concerns about the morality of gambling, its
effects on political corruption and criminal
activity, and the spectre of pathological
gambling and the damage it creates in its
wake, have all been by-products of the public
discussions that have surrounded the casino
question’ (p. 140). Ethical positions
concerning the legalization of casino
gambling tend to cross the traditional political
divide, whereby both supporters and
opponents of legalization can be found
throughout the political spectrum (Wolfe
2007).
Nevertheless, the ethical debate on
casino gambling has received relatively
limited consideration in the tourism and
hospitality literature. Most relevant research
focuses on impact studies and residents’
attitudes toward casino gambling, while
neglecting broader philosophical questions
regarding the morality of gambling. The
numerous empirical investigations on the
negative and positive effects of gambling, as
well as on the perspective of the local
communities, have unquestionably
generated valuable information, yet – as will
be exemplified in this research probe – they
cannot be a substitute for a thorough ethical
The Ethics of Gambling: Are We Asking the Right
Questions?
Amir Shani is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev, Eilat Campus, P.O.B. 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel.
e-mail: shaniam@bgu.ac.il
query. Understanding the ethical meaning of
gambling involves more than matters of fact
– in the words of Scriven (1995) – such
investigation involves ‘difficult philosophical
questions about where to draw the line
between tolerable and intolerable’, as well as
about civil liberties, individual rights, and the
state’s appropriate exercise of power.
The current research probe commences
with an overview of studies about the effects
of casino gambling development, particularly
economic and social impacts, followed by an
assessment of the research on local residents’
attitudes towards casino gambling. After
demonstrating the shortcomings of the
aforementioned studies, the study presents a
comprehensive ethical investigation
examining fundamental moral questions
about gambling. The paper ends with a
presentation of the main conclusions that can
be derived from the research probe, including
suggestions for further ethical investigation.
The Role and Impacts of Casino Gambling
Economic impacts
It is hard to overestimate the role of
gambling in the international tourism
industry. The American Gaming Association
(2012), for example, estimates that in 2010,
the 566 commercial casinos that can be found
in 22 states generated US$ 49.5 billion in
consumer spending and approximately
400,000 direct jobs. Celebrated international
casino centers such as Las Vegas, Monte

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 39, No. 3, 2014 455
Carlo, Sun City and Macao have long relied
on tourists as the main source of business,
while ‘tourist casinos’, in which most
customers are travellers, can be also found
in destinations such as the Gold Coast and
the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, as well
as Windsor and Niagara Falls in Canada
(Eadington 2001). In light of these dazzling
figures, it is no wonder that numerous
destinations seek to jump on the bandwagon
and establish a legal casino gambling
industry. As noted by Moufakkir (2005), the
idea of utilizing casino gambling as a catalyst
for tourism development has been
traditionally promoted on the premise that
by attracting more tourists, casino gambling
will provide new tax revenues and increase
local employment while keeping local
gambling money at home. Legalizing casino
gambling is also promoted for the purpose of
eliminating or significantly reducing the
gambling black market, thus preventing
‘deadweight losses’; i.e., illegal gambling that
does not contribute to productivity (Gillespie
2009).
Yet, launching or expanding gambling
opportunities does not guarantee dramatic
increases in tax revenues or financial gains
for local businesses. Dadayan et al. (2008)
alerted that although many states heavily rely
on gambling revenues to fund educational,
health, welfare and other social programmes,
revenue growth from gambling activities has
slowed in recent years due to broader
economic conditions as well as a result of
growing concerns over the social costs of
gambling which will be discussed next. It
should also be noted that casino gambling
might have an adverse effect on other types
of recreation and entertainment providers,
due to changes in consumption patterns
(Israeli and Mehrez 2000). The latter
phenomenon is also known as the
‘displacement effect’, in which the demand
in other sectors of the local economy declined
following the introduction of casino
gambling. Consequently, ‘gambling is likely
to have a distributive rather than an
expansionary effect on the local economy’
(Felsenstein and Freeman 1998: 155).
Social impacts
Despite the enthusiastic support on
behalf of government officials and tourism
industry representatives for the legalization
of commercial gambling, the initiative to
establish (or expand) casino gambling in a
given destination is often controversial. As
described by Bernhard et al. (2010), earlier
anti-gambling positions tend to focus on the
alleged immorality of the gambling activity
itself, portraying gambling as a sin against
God, family, andor society as a whole.
Modern arguments against gambling, on the
other hand, depict the activity as a sickness
rather than a sin, thus the lion’s share of the
criticism is directed at the gambling industry,
which is condemned for supposedly taking
advantage of the weakness (or illness) of
gamblers. The harsh opposition to casino
gambling often involves gloomy prophecies
regarding the calamitous social consequences
that supposedly follow the legalization or
expansion of gambling activities, such as
increase in problem or pathological gambling,
family-related crimes and disruptions,
domestic violence, higher neighborhood and
property crime, increased prostitution, and
excess alcohol consumption (Pizam and
Pokela 1985; Wan et al. 2011).
The suspected harmful social impacts of
gambling development versus the economic
vision of job creation and tax revenue boosts
have led to extensive research examining the
evidence regarding the positive and negative
effects of casinos. These impact studies often

reveal mixed and contradictory findings that
seem to at the least undermine the definite
assumptions frequently raised regarding the
allegedly horrendous social consequences of
gambling. For example, Nichols et al. (2004)
investigated the impact casino gambling
legalization had on suicide and divorce rate
in eight US communities, and concluded that
there was ‘no widespread, statistically
increases in either suicide or divorce’ (p. 402).
Regarding the prevalence of gambling
addiction, Shaffer and Martin (2011) found
that during the last 35 years the incidence of
pathological gambling in the US remains
relatively stable, ‘despite an unprecedented
increase in opportunities and access to
gambling’ (p. 486). The Harvard researchers
added that gambling addiction typically
constitutes a symptom of an individual’s
underlying disorder, and thus it is incorrect
to view it as a contagious social malady
(Chapman 2011).
Furthermore, according to various
estimations the assumed effect of casinos on
crime is generally overstated and based on
flawed measures. As noted by Walker (2010),
despite of certain increase in crime rates
following introduction of casino gambling,
‘when tourism is accounted for in the model,
the crime effect of casinos is diminished or it
disappears entirely’ (p. 512). In other words,
crime increase is generated by the presence
of more tourists, and not because of casino
gambling per se. Indeed, a study by Moufakkir
(2005), focusing on the impacts of casinos
opening in the city of Detroit, also concluded
that ‘there is no significant or alarming
indication that crime increased after the
casinos opened’ (p.22). Moreover,
notwithstanding the popular myth, the
association of gambling with organized crime
has gradually diminished in the past few
decades, as a result of effective regulation of
legal gambling facilities as well as modern
technologies that improve the monitoring of
money flow within casinos (Eadington 2001).
To sum, the abovementioned findings do
not imply that casino development does not
generate any negative social consequences
under any circumstances, but rather illustrate
that the common estimations tend to
exaggerate the negative impacts following the
introduction or expansion of casino gambling
opportunities. As argued by Eadington
(2001), ‘such claims have been based on
questionable research methods, unverifiable
and untraceable numbers, selective data
interpretation, incorrect concepts, or just
shoddy analysis’ (p. 136). Legalizing casino
gambling might not serve as a panacea for
destinations seeking to rejuvenate their
declining local economy, but overall research
fails to reinforce the strong concerns raised
regarding serious social side effects.
Residents’ Attitudes toward Casino
Gambling
Another prominent line of gambling
research refers to local residents’ attitudes and
perceived impacts about casino gambling
development. Nowadays, gambling is
considered a legitimate form of entertainment
in many Western countries including most
sections of the US. Nonetheless, numerous
studies focused on the perceptions of those
who reside in proximity to the
proposedexisting casino facilities regarding
the positive and negative effects of the latter
on the destination on the local community
as well as on their personal quality-of-life
(e.g., Back and Lee 2005; Lee and Back 2003;
Perdue et al. 1999; Pizam and Pokela 1985;
Wan 2012). This line of study has gained
popularity in tourism research out of the
assumption that the goodwill and
cooperation of the locals are essential

prerequisites for successful casino
development (Chhabra 2009). As noted by
Chhabra and Gursoy (2007), ‘local residents
are likely to support development as long as
the perceived benefits exceed the perceived
costs’ (p. 35), thus indentifying locals’ areas
of support and concerns is vital for the
purpose of influencing their perceptions and
attitudes. Furthermore, it is argued by many
that since local residents are expected to
experience the greatest impact from such
development, considering their views
throughout the planning and development
process is fundamental from an ethical
standpoint (Shani and Pizam 2012).
While undoubtedly providing useful
information that should be taken into
consideration in casino planning and
development, the reliance on residents’
attitudes in examining the positive and
negative impacts of casino gambling fails to
provide a comprehensive and accurate
depiction of reality (Chhabra 2009). Many
residents oppose or support the establishment
or expansion of casino gambling in their
communities based on popular myths rather
than on factual evidence (see previous
sections on economic and social impacts of
casino gambling). For example, Moufakkir
(2005) noted that referenda on casino
gambling development have failed in many
US jurisdictions due to the – often incorrectly
perceived – negative effects of casinos. More
fundamentally, the over-concentration on
residents’ attitudes might lead to an
impression that their level of support should
serve as a ‘litmus test’ regarding gambling
policy decisions at the destination. While the
locals’ perceptions are indisputably
important and can aid the decision-making
process, other considerations may be
paramount in a sound ethical analysis.
Unfortunately, much of the research on
tourism and gambling tend to take this rather
narrow ethical angle limited to residents’
attitudes, rather than embracing a broader
discourse that can provide a comprehensive
inquiry into the ethics of gambling.
An Ethical Assessment of Casino
Gambling
The ethical debate that is recurrently
ignited whenever gambling-related policies
are discussed involves a conflict between two
contrasting ideologies: the Ethics of Sacrifice,
which holds that the ultimate objective of
public policy is to promote and maintain the
‘societal good’ or the ‘general welfare’, versus
the Ethics of Tolerance, which advocates the
supremacy of the ‘rights of the individual’
over any other collective interests (McGowan
1997). Those who promote the Ethics of
Sacrifice tend to hold a strict anti-gambling
position. According to this teleological
philosophy, in order to achieve a more
harmonious society the right of a person to
gamble has to be ‘sacrificed’, since gambling
is supposedly associated with potential
unwelcomed personal and social
consequences. On the other hand, those who
endorse the Ethics of Tolerance are likely to
accept the right of the individual to gamble
(as long as she does not interfere with the
rights of others), despite potentially adverse
effects for himher or for society as a whole
(see McGowan and Brown 1994).
In assessing the strengths of each
ideological stance, it is argued here that the
burden of proof is on the opponents of casino
gambling. As noted by Scriven (1995), ‘if
something widely enjoyable or otherwise
beneficial is to be forbidden, a substantial case
must be made for prohibition’. As was
demonstrated earlier, factual evidence
indicates that many of the perceptions
regarding the costs of casino gambling are

exaggerated, inaccurate or simply incorrect.
Nevertheless, an ethical examination of
casino gambling cannot be simply resolved
with a functional cost-benefit analysis,
despite the centrality of such an investigation
in casino studies. While Israeli and Mehrez
(2000) stated that ‘the decision of whether to
allow legal gaming or not… should be based
on a detailed cost benefit analysis in which
the tangible and intangible costs and benefits
are weighed to determine if the initiative has
a positive value’ (p. 284), such analysis is
often imprecise and relies on speculative data
(especially regarding the intangible outcomes
of casino gambling). In addition to the limited
practicality of this utilitarian approach (e.g.,
aggregating and summing both qualitative
and quantitative forms of costs and benefits),
it can also conflict with certain values that
are usually cherished in free societies like
justice, liberty, and individualism.
The following subsections present some
of the prominent ethical arguments against
legalization of casino gambling, while
evaluating their strengths and accuracy.
Gambling and Addiction
Although legalizing or expanding
gambling opportunities are not likely to lead
to a significant increase in pathological
gambling (Chapman 2011; Shaffer and
Martin 2011), gambling is unquestionably
addictive to some people to the point that
their personal and professional lives and their
families are significantly harmed. See, for
example, the following portrayal of gambling
addiction: ‘casual, recreational gambling can
become a compulsive and pathological
activity. Gambling addicts live a chaotic life,
using an average of 25 credit cards by the
time they declare bankruptcy. Their families
are disrupted, with many members
developing stress-related health problems.
The social problems that accompany
compulsive gambling include loss of time and
productivity at the workplace, theft and
embezzlement’ (Kian 2009: 118). Therefore,
a typical anti-gambling standpoint maintains
that the activity should be outlawed since it
is in the best interest of both the individual
and society as a whole.
Nevertheless, this argument possesses
several weaknesses; the most prominent one
was termed by Sullum (2007) as The Addict’s
Veto fallacy. According to this problematic
logic, any activity that can be lead to harmful
compulsion should be banned. However,
since the vast majority of adults are able to
enjoy gambling responsibly without causing
any harm to themselves or to anybody else,
this anti-gambling position demands an
‘addict’s veto’ over gambling: because some
people may develop destructive gambling
addiction – no one should be allowed to
gamble (Sullum 2007). Since numerous
human activities are associated with potential
risky compulsions (e.g., sex, shopping,
exercise, eating), this line of logic seriously
diminishes individual’s rights and freedom.
Consequently, the vast majority of gamblers,
for whom gambling is a safe and enjoyable
recreational activity, become the victims of a
small minority who cannot control their
gambling compulsions (Scriven 1995).
The argument that we should ban
gambling since it might lead some people to
self-destruction also raises the ethical issue
of paternalism, or, in the words of Scriven
(1995), ‘the issue of whether people have the
right to go to hell in their own way’ (p. 69).
After all, allowing the government to police
its citizens’ (supposedly) bad habits, like
casino gambling, might lead to a ‘slippery
slope’ toward seriously undermining other
individual liberties. If gambling should be

outlawed because it might wreck some
people’s lives, then so should activities such
as drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes,
having unsafe sex, downhill ski racing,
investing in the stock market, taking out
shaky mortgages or loans, or committing
adultery. As noted by Balko (2010), ‘if liberty
means anything at all, it means the freedom
to make our own choices about our lives, our
money, our habits and how we spend our
leisure time, even if they happen to be choices
other people would not make for themselves’
(para. 8).
Gambling, Work Ethic and Greed
Another popular anti-gambling position
concerns the alleged threat it poses to the
value of the work ethic, as well as to the
erosion of the conceptions of reward and
merit (Cosgrave and Klassen 2001). As noted
by Israeli and Mehrez (2000), many
legalization opponents point out ‘that
gambling contradicts well-accepted societal
values of the Puritan work ethic, which
maintains that a person should enjoy the
good only by means of his own efforts and
not through the intervention of chance or
providence’ (p. 284). For example, two
decades ago the Massachusetts Councils of
Churches (1993) issued a petition to the local
government urging it not to allow the
expansion of the gambling industry in the
state since ‘government should not be
enticing its citizens to gamble, offering the
illusion of easy money, or encouraging greed.
This fosters a ‘something for nothing’ attitude
which is in contrast to the dignity of work”
(p. 2).
The idea that legal gambling enervates
the value of hard work and human
achievement in society has received no
serious empirical reinforcement. Certainly
there are anecdotes on irresponsible gamblers
who dream of ‘hitting the jackpot’ in lieu of
accomplishing success through work and
education, but such anecdotes are not a
substitute for empirical evidence, which is
lacking. As observed by Scriven (1995) in Las
Vegas, ‘since there are very large numbers of
hard working people in the casinos and the
city, the discouragement of work and the
encouragement of greed are not exactly
universal’ (p. 67). In any case, even if there is
an association between gambling and a
lower commitment to work, gambling is
hardly different from other social acceptable
means in which people may receive
‘something for nothing’, such as inheritance
and gifts.
The Unproductive Nature of Gambling
Much resistance to gambling legalization
derives from the argument that the gambling
industry does not produce added-value
products and reinvestment in the local
economy. In addition, establishing casinos is
likely to divert consumer money from
‘legitimate’ goods and services to
‘unproductive’ gambling-related activities
(Lugar 1998). This claim, at least to a certain
degree, may be factually correct. As was
mentioned earlier in the paper, ‘money lost
at the blackjack table can’t be spent on other
types of recreation and entertainment’
(Chapman 2011: para 5). The optimistic
estimations often made regarding tax
revenues following the expansion of
gambling opportunities also tend to be
overstated.
Having said that, banning activity due
to its insignificant contribution to cost-
effective measures such as gross domestic
product or tax revenues sets a troublesome
ethical principle. Naturally, many leisure
activities add nothing to the local economy
yet they are not condemned. In this regard,

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank
(2009) contended that ‘the notion that
individual choices and personal freedom
have to be justified on the grounds that they
contribute to the gross domestic product is
of course a serious threat to individual liberty’
(para 5).
The fact that the establishment of casinos
financially threatens other local businesses
(Felsenstein and Freeman 1998) constitutes
poor ethical reasoning as opposition to
gambling legalization. Many tourism and
hospitality companies struggle over tourist
spending in a business environment where
competition is fierce, yet this is hardly a
satisfactory justification to prevent new
entrants from trying their luck in such a
competitive market. For example, the
establishment of all-inclusive resorts in many
tourism destinations drove many local
restaurants and entertainment venues out of
business, yet usually no serious suggestions
have been made to outlaw all-inclusive
resorts in societies that are characterized by
a free market.
Gambling and Crime
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the
association between legal casino gambling
and crime (including organized crime) is not
well supported. Nonetheless, a traditional
anti-gambling argument still maintains that
casinos should be banned since they may be
used as a means to circumvent the law,
particularly for money laundering purposes.
There is a possibility, of course, that despite
heavy regulation, in some cases, legal casinos
are or will be used to cover criminal activities,
but, as mentioned by Scriven (1995), this
argument ‘is worthless since it draws no
contrast with the alternatives’ (p. 68).
Organized crime syndicates have
traditionally used businesses such as dry-
cleaning stores and waste management
operations, yet the authorities’ logical
response has been to implement regulation
measures to strengthen the law enforcement
in these industries rather than utterly
banning them. In any case, gambling
prohibition seems to only make things worse,
as it creates further sources of funding for
criminal organizations who are the main
beneficiaries from driving gambling activities
underground.
Gambling prohibition and the
consequent illegal casinos have other clear
adverse effects concerning the rule of law.
As suggested by Miron (2010), while crimes
such as robbery or assault generate a victim
who may file a complaint, in the black market
neither the gambler nor the illegal casinos
have an interest in alerting the authorities
since both parties broke the law. Additionally,
since the participants in the illegal gambling
industry cannot resolve disputes using
legitimate means like the legal system, they
often turn to violence. It should also be taken
into consideration that gambling prohibition
might result in disrespect for the law since
prohibiting gambling does not wipe it out but
simply pushes it underground, and ‘everyone
learns that laws are for suckers’ (Miron 2010:
64).
Exposure to Undesirable Influences
The anti-gambling position often refers
to gamblers’ exposure to other acts of
(supposedly) moral corruption, such as
alcohol intoxication and prostitution. In
many gambling destinations, casinos are
accused of actively encouraging their
patrons’ alcohol consumption, through the
provision of free alcoholic beverages (Stitt et
al. 2003). Another ‘vice’ that casinos are
customarily associated with is prostitution,
although in many cases the prostitution rate

was actually decreased or remained identical
following the legalization of casinos
(Giacopassi et al. 2001). A particular concern
that is often raised is that minors will be more
likely to be exposed to gambling and other
allegedly immoral behaviours once casinos
are out in the open.
However, these arguments, despite
partial accuracy, are ethically shaky and set
impossible standards. Regarding the
pervasive availability of alcohol, Scriven
(1995) replied that ‘it is also true in every
licensed restaurant in the country – and most
social events – the casinos are hardly
distinctive for this’ (p. 67). Many restaurants
and pubs may also encourage alcohol
consumption by embracing ‘happy hours’,
i.e., a period of time in which alcoholic
beverages are offered in discount. The risk
for minors can be met by enforcing a strict
age limit in casinos, similarly to the legal
drinking age. In any case, as was noted by
US Congressman Barney Frank (2009), ‘if we
were to ban every activity that is suitable only
for adults because of the possibility that some
underage people might access these activities,
we would have substantially diminished our
freedom as adults’ (para 6).
Conclusions
The abundance of gambling impact
studies and research on residents’ attitudes
toward casino development in tourism and
hospitality literature have yielded useful
information, which is nevertheless
insufficient in examining the ethical nature
of gambling. Casino impact studies typically
rely on cost-benefit analyses, whereas the
effects of casino gambling are difficult to
quantify and aggregate. Consequently, such
an approach does not allow for the making
of definite conclusions regarding the accurate
impacts of casino gambling, but rather
merely serves as a starting point for an ethical
debate. Overall, the review of the relevant
literature reveals mixed results yet a
conclusion can be made that the assumed
destructive consequences of the legalization
or expanding of casino gambling are
considerably inflated. On the other hand,
viewing casino gambling as a panacea for the
difficult financial crises that many
destinations face also seems to be overly
optimistic.
The studies on residents’ attitudes
toward casino gambling also provide
valuable information for both scholars and
policy makers, yet the locals’ perspectives
cannot be the sole – or even the main –
indicator of the ethicality of gambling. Local
residents often base their standpoints on
unreliable sources of information or on ‘moral
panic’, rather on factual data. In addition,
allowing local residents the ‘veto vote’ about
which types of businesses should be legalized
in their communities might lead to a ‘tyranny
of the majority’, in which individual rights
are oppressed by a majority rule. As a result,
a comprehensive ethical inquiry requires the
considerations of broader philosophical
issues, some of which were discussed in this
research probe.
From the current analysis it can be
concluded that the anti-gambling position,
which opposes the legalization of casinos and
often other gambling-related activities,
cannot be ethically justified. If accepted, the
ethical principles that are derived from the
anti-gambling arguments – and can be
applied to other ‘vices’ as well – will do little
to reduce the negative consequences of these
activities, and moreover will substantially
infringe fundamental individual rights and
civil liberties, and allow for the use of
excessive authority of society over the

individual. This is not to say that certain
reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed on
the legal gambling industry to reduce its
associated risks. Age restrictions, limits on bet
and loss sizes, a no-credit policy, and limits
on the number of times a person can visit a
casino in a month are examples of control
measures that were adopted in casinos
around the world and might be considered
moderate compromises (Kian 2009; Scriven
1995), although their effectiveness and ethical
justification should receive further attention
in casino studies.
It is hoped that this research probe will
incite further attempts to discuss and clarify
the morality of casino gambling and other
“vices” such as prostitution, drugs and
alcohol consumption that are, in many cases,
related to the tourism industry. Examining
these activities from a broader philosophical
perspective has far reaching implications on
society and everyday life than most people
usually appreciate. A fundamental question
– albeit without an easy answer – that is likely
to be raised in such discussions is what
should be the appropriate nature and level
of control society has on the individuals that
comprise it. The tourism and hospitality
scholarship has much potential to contribute
to this crucial debate.
References
AMERICAN GAMING ASSOCIATION (2012). The State of the Modern Casino Industry: Speech to the Massachusetts
Gaming Association. http://www.americangaming.org/newsroom/speeches-testimony/the-state-of-the-modern-
casino-industry-speech-to-the-massachusetts – Accessed on 28 October, 2012.
BACK, K. and LEE, C. (2005). Residents’ Perceptions of Casino Development in Korea: The Kangwon Land Casino
Case. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal 9(2): 45–53.
BALKO, R. (2010). Gambling (Part 1). http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gambling-part-1 – Accessed
on 22 October, 2012.
BERNHARD, B.J., FUTRELL, R. and HARPER, A. (2010). “Shots form the Pulpit”: An Ethnographic Content Analysis
of United States Anti-Gambling Social Movement Documents. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal 14(2): 15–
32.
CHAPMAN, S. (2011). The Myths about Legalized Gambling. http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/06/the-myths-
about-legalized-gamb – Accessed on 12 October 2012.
CHHABRA, D. (2009). Examining Resident Perceptions of Negative Gambling Impacts with Factual Evidence. UNLV
Gaming Research & Review Journal 13(2): 27–43.
CHHABRA, D. and GURSOY, D. (2007). Perceived Impacts of Gambling: Integration of Two Theories. UNLV Gaming
Research & Review Journal 11(1): 27–40.
COSGRAVE, J. and KLASSEN, T.R. (2001). Gambling Against the State: The State and the Legitimation of Gambling.
Current Sociology 49(5): 1–15.
DADAYAN, L., GIGUASHVILI, N. and WARD, R.B. (2008). From a Bonanza to a Blue Chip? Gambling Revenue to the States.
New York. The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
EADINGTON, W.R. (2001). The Spread of Casinos and Their Role in Tourism Development. In Pearce, D.G. and
Butler, R.W. (Eds) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development. New York. Routledge: 127–142.
FELSENSTEIN, D. and FREEMAN, D. (1998). Simulating the Impacts of Gambling in a Tourist Location: Some Evidence
form Israel. Journal of Travel Research 37(2): 145–155.
FRANK, B. (2009). With Gambling, Personal Freedom is Always the Best Bet. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/
articles/2009/06/01/with-gambling-personal-freedom-is-always-the-best-bet-says-barney-frank – Accessed on
10 October 2012.
GIACOPASSI, D., STITT, B.G. and NICHOLS, M. (2001). Community Perception of Casino Gambling’s Effect on Crime
in New Gambling Jurisdictions. The Justice Professional, 14(2-3): 151–170.

GILLESPIE, N. (2009). Paying With Our Sins. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/
17gillespie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 – Accessed on 22 October 2012.
ISRAELI, A.A. and MEHREZ, A. (2000). From Illegal Gambling to Legal Gaming: Casinos in Israel. Tourism Management
21(3): 281–291.
KIAN, C.T.S. (2009). New Developments in Casino Gaming Business: Singapore’s Approach to Responsible Gambling.
Business Law Review 30(5): 116–119.
LEE. C. and BACK, K. (2003). Pre- and Post-Casino Impact of Residents’ Perception. Annals of Tourism Research 30(4):
868–885.
LUGAR, R. (1998). Gambling Weakens the Work Ethic and the Family. In Evans, R.L. and Hance, M. (Eds.) Legalized
Gambling: For and Against. Chicago. Open Court Publishing: 219–223.
MASSACHUSETTS COUNCILS OF CHURCHES. (1993). Gambling and Government: Some Ethical Concerns. http:/
/www.masscouncilofchurches.org/docs/gamb93.pdf – Accessed 1 November 2012.
MCGOWAN, R. (1997). The Ethics of Gambling Research: An Agenda for Mature Analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies
13(4): 279–289.
MCGOWAN, R. and BROWN, T. (1994). The Ethics of Tolerance and the Evolution of Smoking and Gambling as
Public Policy Issues. International Journal of Value-Based Management 7(3): 255–269.
MIRON, J.A. (2010). Libertarianism, From A to Z. New York. Basic Books.
MOUFAKKIR, O. (2005). An Assessment of Crime Volume Following Casino Gaming Development in the City of
Detroit. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal 9(1): 15–28.
NICHOLS. M.W., STITT, B.G. and GIACOPASSI,D. (2004). Changes in Suicide and Divorce in New Casino Jurisdictions.
Journal of Gambling Studies 20(4): 391–404.
PERDUE, R.R., LONG, P.T. and KANG, Y.S. (1999). Boomtown Tourism and Resident Quality of Life: The Marketing
of Gaming to Host Community Residents. Journal of Business Research 44(3): 165–177.
PIZAM, A. and POKELA, J. (1985). The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism
Research 12(2): 147–165.
SCRIVEN, M. (1995). The Philosophical Foundations of Las Vegas. Journal of Gambling Studies 11(1): 61–75.
SHAFFER, H.J. and MARTIN, R. (2011). Disordered Gambling: Etiology, Trajectory, and Clinical Considerations.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 7: 483–510.
SHANI, A. and PIZAM, A. (2012). Community Participation in Tourism Planning and Development. In Uysal, M.,
Perdue, R. and Sirgy, M.J. (Eds) Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and
Residents of Host Communities. New York. Springer: 547–564.
STITT, B.G., NICHOLS, M. and GIACOPASSI, D. (2003). Does the Presence of Casinos Increase Crime? An Examination
of Casino and Control Communities. Crime & Delinquency 49(2): 253–284.
SULLUM, J. (2007). The Addict’s Veto. http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/the-addict-s-veto.html -
Accessed on 28 September 2012.
WALKER, D.M. (2010). Casinos and Crime in the USA. In Benson, B.L. and Zimmerman, P.R. (Eds) Handbook on the
Economics of Crime. Gloucestershire, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 488–517.
WAN, Y.K.P. (2012). The Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Casino Gaming in Macao: The Community
Leader Perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(5): 737–755.
WAN, Y.K.P., LI, X.C. and KONG, W.H. (2011). Social Impacts of Casino Gaming in Macao: A Qualitative Analysis.
Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal 59(1): 63–82.
WOLFE, A. (2007). What We Don’t About Gambling, but Should. The Chronicle Review 54(7): B8.
Submitted: November 27, 2012
Accepted: November 26, 2014
Continued...

Amir Shani initiated a brainstorming
exercise on a controversial question: ‘Ethics
of gambling: are we asking the right
question?’ There appears to be no single
answer that can address Shani’s question
perfectly. Instead of providing a clear-cut
answer to this debatable question, this
chapter tends to focus the discussions on two
related issues. The first issue is whether
gambling is ethical or not. Additionally, if
gambling is ethical, how can stakeholders of
gambling prevent gambling deviating from
its ethical path and push it to the ethical peak.
In contrast, if gambling is unethical, how can
stakeholders reduce its unethical extent?
Through a critical discussion on these two
issues, we expect all people who are directly
or indirectly involved in gambling, including
gamblers, gambling industry operators (i.e.,
casinos), health service and welfare
providers, and government (Blaszczynski et
al. 2004), can gain a clearer understanding
on their obligations in the pursuit of a healthy
and sustainable gambling (or gaming)
industry.
Is Gambling Ethical?
Gambling is defined as ‘any activity that
involved an element of risk where money is
wagered and could be won or lost’
(Ellenbogen et al. 2007: 136). Its linkages to
intoxication, drug abuse, smoking, and
Beyond Ethical Assessment of Gambling
Lawrence Hoc Nang Fong is at Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, E22-
3086, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau SAR, China. e-mail: lawrencefong@umac.mo
Daniel Leung is Daniel Leung is at Department of Tourism and Service Management, MODUL
University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.e-mail: daniel.leung@modul.ac.at
Rob Law is at School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-
sity, 17 Science Museum Road, TST East, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
Email: rob.law@polyu.edu.hk
prostitution linger in most people’s minds.
These behaviours have generally been
classified as ‘bad habits’ (Burnham 1993).
Worse still, casino is even considered as a
dirty business (Lai et al. 2013). As such,
investing in the stock/share of casino
companies becomes sinful (Hong and
Kacperczyk 2009). The sinful image of
gambling is particularly salient from religious
followers’ perspective. For instance, Islam
considers gambling a devil’s vocation (Israeli
and Mehrez 2000). Gamblers are even
analogized as thieves, grounding in the
rationale that both gamblers and thieves
share common characteristics including
‘greedy, selfish, and prone to appropriate
items of value without concern for others’
(Binde 2005: 451). These negative labels shape
the social norm of gambling that it is a guilty
activity (Loo et al. 2008). Therefore, social
desirability is always a concern in
researching people’s attitude toward
gambling (Kassinove et al. 1998) and
intention to gamble (Lee 2013). This, in turn,
renders people’s intentional concealing of
their gambling behaviour (Loo et al. 2008).
The social desirability effect, perhaps, even
extends to researchers. Shani noted in his
probe that negative impacts might have been
amplified by the researchers who
investigated local residents’ attitude toward
casino gaming. This argument, to a certain

extent, reflects that researchers fail to depart
from the social norm. Following this rationale,
it seems more generally acceptable to consider
gambling unethical.
Despite the common thought of
considering gambling as an unethical activity,
there are arguments against the unethical
nature of gambling. From the anthropological
point of view, gambling can fulfill the
principle of egalitarian (Binde 2005).
Assuming every gambler has the same
probability to win the game in the long run,
losers have the right to win back what they
had lost in the gambling session and
eventually gamblers’ wealth can be balanced.
This view, perhaps, is too optimistic as it
assumes that gamblers would persist in
gambling until their wealth is equally
distributed. More importantly, it is well
understood among the school of mathematics
that gambling industry operators (i.e.,
casinos) have advantage over their winning
probability. Hence, gamblers’ wealth can
never be balanced. It is also inconceivable for
casinos to share their wealth with the
gamblers.
In the discussion on ethical value of
gambling, Binde (2005) noted that an
individual has the right and freedom to
gamble in order to enjoy the fun and
excitement upon the gambling experience.
This argument is applicable to certain
gamblers who are primarily motivated by the
hedonic value of gambling. However,
previous empirical studies report that
gamblers are mainly motivated by the chance
of winning money (Lee et al. 2006; Neighbors
et al. 2002). Notwithstanding a gambler plays
for hedonic reason, monetary appeal still
plays a major role in between (Lee et al. 2007).
More importantly, gamblers who are
motivated by monetary gain are more likely
to be problem gamblers (Nower and
Blaszczynski 2010). Instead of enjoying the
freedom to gamble, problem gamblers are
forced to do so as their cognitive control over
gambling is impaired (Blaszczynski and
Nower 2002). It is thus questionable if people
want to gain hedonic value from an activity,
whether gambling is the only option available
to them. The answer is ostensibly ‘no’. Based
on these observations, there appears to be no
room to consider if gambling is ethical.
If gambling is considered to be unethical,
should gambling business be legally
permitted? Perhaps it is too late to ask this
question witnessing the widespread of
gambling business all over the world. Even
though gambling has never been legally
permitted, does it mean that gambling activity
would never emerge? The answer is certainly
‘no’. Legalization of gambling happens when
the gambling activities has already existed in
the society. In this sense, the ethical
assessment of gambling (i.e., whether
gambling is ethical or not) may not be a major
concern given the fact that availability of
gambling products is irrevocable. This
contention resonates with Israeli and
Mehrez’s (2000: 284) assertion that: ‘ethical
arguments do not inhibit the popular demand
for gaming’. Moreover, the economic
significance of casino gambling is well
evidenced, in particular on its role as a
catalyst of tourism development in many
destinations (Eadington 1999; Israeli and
Mehrez 2000). For instance, Las Vegas is the
symbolic icon in this regard as this gambling
capital of the world was developed from an
isolated desert in the past. A more recent
example is Macau in China, which is
currently the most lucrative casino gambling
market in the world. Its casino industry
renders a number of economic benefits for
the local community including improvement

of employment condition, higher levels of
private and public investments, more tax
revenues, and more business transactions
(Fong et al. 2011). Still, some people may
blame that the supportive attitude toward
casino gambling business is unethical.
However, if a person believes that the casino
industry can help improve the economy and
residents’ well-being but decides to set a veto
on it, such a decision may not be ethical. At
present, gambling is already a legal activity
in many jurisdictions. Hence, debating on
whether gambling is ethical or not may not
add any meaningful value.
If it is tenable to argue that gambling is
unethical, stakeholders’ attention should fall
into minimizing the unethical extent of
gambling. This contention concurs with the
advocacies of public health researchers that
preventing problem gambling incidence and
reducing gambling-related harm are of the
utmost importance (Blaszczynski et al. 2004).
Probably, the advocators also realize the
impossibility of removing all gambling
activities. To achieve these advocacies, or in
other words to reduce the unethical extent,
several agenda items are worthwhile for
stakeholders’ contemplation.
How to Reduce the Unethical Extent of
Gambling?
To reduce the unethical extent of
gambling, legislation is perhaps topping the
agenda list. Without a structural and
comprehensive legal framework, dirty
business would become more inferior.
Likewise, unethical business would become
irretrievable in the extreme if there is no way
to reduce the unethical extent. Given its long
history of legalized casino gambling, Las
Vegas has expended large efforts to purify
people’s negative impression on gambling.
Undeniably, emerging gambling destinations
also need to strengthen their regulation works
on their casino industries if they do not want
their reputations become notorious. As an
example, the Singaporean Government, upon
its process of deregulating the casinoindustry,
did a lot of legislation works to address
potential negative social impacts caused by
the casino industry (Henderson 2006). Macau
also underwent legislative reformation on the
gambling business after its casino industry
was liberalized in 2002. Under the pressure
from the casino concessionaire originated
from the United States, the Macau
Government enacted a law to regulate the
high-roller market which is vulnerable to
criminal activities (Eadington and Siu 2007).
However, the government was criticized to
leave some leeway in introducing the
regulatory change, which may threaten the
casino gambling revenue and thereafter the
gambling tax revenue (Eadington and Siu
2007). These anecdotal evidences shed lights
on the extent to which different regulators
are concerned about the ethics of gambling.
Nevertheless, legislation is a key milestone in
the pursuance of reducing the unethical
extent of gambling. Also, it is important to
note that a comprehensive legal framework
is just an inception. Government should
ensure that the law is effectively enforced.
Otherwise, legislation work is of no ethical
value.
Another worth-to-consider strategy on
reducing the unethical extent of gambling is
to get stakeholders’ commitment to
responsible gambling. Responsible gambling
refers to the ‘policies and practices designed
to prevent and reduce potential harms
associated with gambling’ (Blaszczynski et
al. 2004: 308). The imprint of responsible
gambling can be found in many developed
countries like Canada, the United States, and
Australia. However, it is still at an early stage

in certain developing destinations like
Macau. Although this notion was introduced
to the Macau community several years ago,
limited pragmatic practices on responsible
gambling have been pursued there.
Paradoxically, half of the casino operators in
Macau also operate casino business in the
United States where responsible gambling has
been practicing since mid-1990s (Hing 2012).
Procrastination of the implementation of
responsible gambling appears unreasonable.
While stakeholders’ commitment has been
contended the successful linchpin of
responsible gambling programme
(Blaszczynski et al. 2004), procrastination of
responsible gambling programme in Macau
can be due to the lack of stakeholders’
commitment. This is not surprising because
of the conflict between responsible gambling
and key stakeholders’ vested interest. Casinos
in Macau are operated by publicly listed
companies. Profit maximization is
undeniably the most important mission of the
management. However, responsible
gambling aims to reduce excessive gambling
incidences which may threaten the
shareholders’ interest. Yet, Macau’s economy
is characterized with heavy dependence on
the casino industry (So et al. 2012). More
importantly, a vast majority of gamblers in
the jurisdiction are tourists. Local residents’
participation in gambling is minimal (Vong
2004). It is unlikely for the government to
receive community support on the promotion
of responsible gambling. Definitely, social
welfare organizations and scholars would
voice out the importance of responsible
gambling. However, their influence would be
very limited. Without acquiring the
commitment from all stakeholders, the
progress of any responsible gambling project
would solely remain at the superficial level.
Recently, a group of international
gambling scholars from North America,
Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, and
Africa proposed a set of responsible gambling
requirements that can be applied universally
(Blaszczynski et al. 2011). The requirements
provide a useful guideline on how the
unethical extent of gambling can be reduced.
These scholars suggested that a ‘safe’
gambling product or environment should be
provided, supplemented by legislation work.
Specific measures include educating the
general population about the nature of
gambling and winning probability, training
casino staff to identify and respond to
gamblers who are at the risk of problem
gambling, informing the public about the
availability of treatment programmes,
refraining marketing work to minors, alerting
gamblers about the possible negative
consequences of excessive gambling,
restricting underage gambling, restricting
sale of alcohol to gamblers, offering self-
exclusion options to gamblers, mandating
clear display of responsible gambling
messages on advertisements and marketing
materials, and changing gambling facilities
and environment that might lead to problem
gambling. These measures are apparently the
responsibilities of government and casino
operators. On the other hand, gamblers
should play responsibly. They should
maintain their gambling behaviour at a ‘safe’
level and avoid causing interference to others.
While the impact of gambling on a local
community has been well documented in the
literature (Lee and Back 2003; Pizam and
Pokela 1985; Zhou et al. 2014), little research
concerned the negative social impact on
tourists or the export of social costs to other
countries. This issue is particularly salient in
the gambling destinations where most
gambling revenues are contributed by
tourists. Macau is a typical case as its tourists,

especially those from Mainland China, are
the major contributor to the gaming revenue
(Fong et al. 2011). Stories about Mainland
Chinese officials gambling with the funds
derived from embezzlement are not scant
(Eadington and Siu 2007). More importantly,
while gambling is generally considered as a
recreational activity in many Western
countries, some Chinese considers gambling
as a means to earn easy money, and they are
more willing to take risk in betting than their
Western counterparts (Chien and Hsu 2006).
Coherent with this phenomenon, the
prevalence of problem gambling among
Chinese has been found to be more severe
than other people (Blaszczynski et al. 2011).
Therefore, from an ethical perspective, it is
of great importance for the indigenous
stakeholders to confront the issue about the
export of social costs. In this regard, it is
imperative for the government and casino
operators to implement the aforementioned
minimum requirements of responsible
gambling. Local residents, as a beneficiary of
casino development in the destination, can
also play a part by promoting the notion of
responsible gambling to tourists. If the export
of social costs reaches a point which is
intolerable from foreign governments’
perspective, a possible consequence would be
their control of outbound tourists to the
gambling destination. Then, the sustainable
development of the gambling destination
would be threatened.
While our foregoing discussions on
reducing the unethical extent of gambling
mainly fall into the aspect of preventing and
reducing gambling-related harm, there is
another aspect – ethical transformation (i.e.,
transforming the unethical gambling business
to ethical contributions to the society) – worth
noticing. Nowadays, hospitality
corporations’ participations in charity
activities by means of monetary donation and
employee volunteerism are very common
(Holcomb et al. 2007). Being considered as a
business that produces negative impacts,
casinos are naturally assumed to participate
in charity activities. However, this may not
contribute much to reduction of the unethical
extent of gambling if their contributions fall
into the areas which are not directly related
to the negative consequences of gambling.
Thus, casino operators should put more
efforts on ethical work like setting up a
responsible gambling team under the
supervision of top management, and funding
help-line centers, treatment centers, and
scientific research on reducing gambling-
related harm. Government, the authority that
permits legal gambling and a major
beneficiary under the casino development
(through gaming tax), is also obligated to
share a part of the casino operators’ ethical
contributions.
Conclusions
In this response to lead probe, we do not
aim to assert gambling is ethical or not as
general population should have a judgment
on this issue. Perhaps, due to the values
inherited from the past, general population
tends to consider gambling as an unethical
activity. There are, certainly, opponents
holding a contrasting opinion on ethics of
gambling. No matter how, and whether
gambling is ethical or not may not be a major
focus. We should extend our eyesight beyond
this issue, given the fact that availability of
gambling is almost irrevocable. Instead, our
attention should gear toward a more
pragmatic issue – how the unethical extent
of gambling can be reduced, or if gambling is
considered as ethical, how to maintain it on
the ethical track. Perhaps, this is also a
solution, though not a perfect one, to address

the ideological conflict between Ethics of
Sacrifice and Ethics of Tolerance, which was
articulated by Shani in his probe. On the one
hand, by permitting gambling activities,
people’s right to gamble as advocated by the
Ethics of Tolerance is respected. On the other
hand, the concern of Ethics of Sacrifice on the
negative consequences can be accommodated
by directing resources toward reduction of
gambling-related harm (i.e., reduction of
unethical extent).
To reduce the unethical extent of
gambling, two approaches can be considered.
First, a comprehensive legislative framework
should be established and effective
enforcement should be pursued to rule out
the activities worsening the unethical view
on gambling. Second, all stakeholders of
gambling should commit to the
implementation of responsible gambling by
complying with the minimum requirements
as specified in Blaszczynski et al. (2011). Also,
casino operators and government should
make ethical use of the revenues generated
from the gambling business to support the
clinical and scholarly works on reducing
gambling-related harm.
In his conclusion, Shani maintained that
researchers who are keen on studying ethics
of gambling should not devote their entire
focus on residents’ attitudes toward casino
development. This argument echoes with our
concern on the negative impact toward
tourists. Researchers, including those from
tourism and hospitality, should devote more
research efforts on investigating the social
impact of gambling on tourists. This is
imperative to maintain the sustainability of
gambling destinations.
To answer the question raised by Shani:
‘Ethics of gambling: Are we asking the right
question?’, our answer is ‘no’ if the focus
merely falls into whether gambling is ethical
or not, but ‘yes’ if the focus is extended to
reduction of the unethical extent of gambling.
References
BINDE, P. (2005). Gambling, Exchange Systems, and Moralities. Journal of Gambling Studies 21(4): 445–479.
BLASZCZYNSKI, A., COLLINS, P., FONG, D., LADOUCEUR, R., NOWER, L., SHAFFER, H. J., TAVARES, H. and
VENISSE, J.-L. (2011). Responsible Gambling: General Principles and Minimal Requirements. Journal of Gambling
Studies 27(4): 565–573.
BLASZCZYNSKI, A., LADOUCEUR, R. and SHAFFER, H. J. (2004). A Science-based Framework for Responsible
Gambling: The Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Studies 20(3): 307–317.
BLASZCZYNSKI, A. and NOWER, L. (2002). A Pathways Model of Problem and Pathological Gambling. Addiction
97(5): 487–499.
BURNHAM, J. C. (1993). Bad Habits: Drinking, Smoking, Taking Drugs, Gambling, Sexual Misbehavior, and Swearing in
American History. New York. New York University Press.
CHIEN, G. C. L. and HSU, C. H. C. (2006). Gambling and Chinese Culture. In Hsu, C. H. C. (Ed) Casino Industry in Asia
Pacific: Development, Operation, and Impact. New York. Haworth Hospitality Press: 201–224.
EADINGTON, W. R. (1999). The Spread of Casinos and their Role in Tourism Development. In Pearce, D. G. and
Butler, R. (Eds) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development. London. Routledge Chapman & Hall: 127–142.
EADINGTON, W. R. and SIU, R. C. S. (2007). Between Law and Custom—Examining the Interaction between Legislative
Change and the Evolution of Macao’s Casino Industry. International Gambling Studies 7(1): 1–28.
ELLENBOGEN, S., DEREVENSKY, J. and GUPTA, R. (2007). Gender Differences among Adolescents with Gambling-
related Problems. Journal of Gambling Studies 23(2): 133–143.
FONG, D. K. C., FONG, H. N. and LI, S. Z. (2011). The Social Cost of Gambling in Macao: Before and After the
Liberalisation of the Gaming Industry. International Gambling Studies 11(1): 43–56.

HENDERSON, J. (2006). Betting on Casino Tourism in Asia: Singapore’s Integrated Resorts. Tourism Review International
10(3): 169–179.
HING, N. (2012). Principles, Processes and Practices in Responsible Provision of Gambling: A Conceptual Discussion.
UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal 7(1): 33–47.
HOLCOMB, J. L., UPCHURCH, R. S. and OKUMUS, F. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: What are Top Hotel
Companies Reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19(6): 461–475.
HONG, H. and KACPERCZYK, M. (2009). The Price of Sin: The Effects of Social Norms on Markets. Journal of Financial
Economics 93(1): 15–36.
ISRAELI, A. A. and MEHREZ, A. (2000). From Illegal Gambling to Legal Gaming: Casinos in Israel. Tourism Management
21(3): 281–291.
KASSINOVE, J. I., TSYTSAREV, S. V. and DAVIDSON, I. (1998). Russian Attitudes toward Gambling. Personality and
Individual Differences 24(1): 41–46.
LAI, J. Y. M., CHAN, K. W. and LAM, L. W. (2013). Defining Who You are Not: The Roles of Moral Dirtiness and
Occupational and Organizational Disidentification in Affecting Casino Employee Turnover Intention. Journal of
Business Research 66(9): 1659–1666.
LEE, C.-K. and BACK, K.-J. (2003). Pre- and Post-casino Impact of Residents’ Perception. Annals of Tourism Research
30(4): 868–885.
LEE, C.-K., LEE, Y. K., BERNHARD, B. J., and YOON, Y. S. (2006). Segmenting Casino Gamblers by Motivation: A
Cluster Analysis of Korean Gamblers. Tourism Management 27(5): 856–866.
LEE, H.-P., CHAE, P. K., LEE, H.-S. and KIM, Y.-K. (2007). The Five-factor Gambling Motivation Model. Psychiatry
Research 150(1): 21–32.
LEE, H.-S. (2013). Predicting and Understanding Undergraduate Students' Intentions to Gamble in a Casino Using an
Extended Model of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies
29(2): 269–288.
LOO, J. M. Y., RAYLU, N. and OEI, T. P. S. (2008). Gambling Among the Chinese: A Comprehensive Review. Clinical
Psychology Review 28(7): 1152–1166.
NEIGHBORS, C., LOSTUTTER, T., CRONCE, J. and LARIMER, M. (2002). Exploring College Student Gambling
Motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies 18(4): 361–370.
NOWER, L. and BLASZCZYNSKI, A. (2010). Gambling Motivations, Money-limiting Strategies, and Precommitment
Preferences of Problem Versus Non-problem Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies 26(3): 361–372.
PIZAM, A. and POKELA, J. (1985). The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism
Research 12(2): 147–165.
SO, S.-I., DIOKO, L. A. and FONG, H. N. (2012). Attracting Divergent Segments to a Destination: Assessing Segment
Compatibility by Activities Sought—A Case Study of Macao. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4): 341–357.
VONG, F. C. K. (2004). Gambling Attitudes and Gambling Behavior of Residents of Macao: The Monte Carlo of the
Orient. Journal of Travel Research 42(3): 271–278.
ZHOU, Y., LU, T., and YOO, J. J.-E. (2014). Residents’ Perceived Impacts of Gaming Development in Macau: Social
Representation Perspectives. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19(5): 579–599.
Submitted: March 28, 2013
Continued...

Introduction
Gambling behaviour in general, and
casino gambling in particular, has been a
controversial social issue for many years
(Chambers 2011; Cosgrave 2006; Eadington
1998, 1999, 2003; Giacopassi et al. 1999;
Orford 2005; Scriven 1995). Those opposed
to casino gambling do so on religious-moral
and social grounds, citing its risks of increased
crime, possible subversion of society’s moral
fabric and of the value of working for a living,
and individual addiction. Its proponents
stress the potential economic benefits of
boosting tourism and economic development
– particularly in economically disadvantaged
areas – the creation of jobs, and the
opportunity for responsible government
oversight that minimizes the potential harms
of gambling and protects the public from
illegal gambling operations run by organized
crime (Reuter 1983).
Shani’s lead probe confronts these
common arguments with regard to casino
gambling and examines them under an
ethical-moral lens: arguments against casino
gambling, which are rooted in the Ethics of
Sacrifice – whereby the individual sacrifices
his freedom to have readily-accessible
gambling, and the possible profits thereof, for
the sake of harmony and order in the society
at large – are pitted against proponents’
arguments, based on the Ethics of Tolerance,
namely that the individual should always be
The Ethics of Gambling: Are We Asking the Right
Questions or should these Questions be Explored in
a Wider Context
Belle Gavriel-Fried is Lecturer at the Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University,
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. e-mail: bellegav@post.tau.ac.il
given complete freedom, as long as it does
not harm another person (McGowan 2001).
By placing the burden of proof on the
opponents of gambling, Shani argues that
opposition to casino gambling is not
grounded in hard fact, that research findings
are inconsistent, and that relying on public
attitudes is problematic because the general
public tends to form its views from myths or
in ‘fits of moral panic’. Hence, in his view,
these arguments have no ethical justification,
and accepting them would infringe upon the
freedom of the individual. With these
statements, Shani joins the chorus of
commonly-espoused views in Western society
in the past three decades – by various political
figures and officials in the gambling industry
– that are based on neo-liberal arguments
about individualism and freedom of the
individual, to promote their political agenda
and economic interests.
While Shani frames his arguments for
and against casino gambling in ethical terms,
this paper describes the broader processes
and the social and political forces that have
led to changes in how gambling behaviour is
perceived over the years – from the notion
that it is a sin or vice, to seeing it as a sickness,
to the modern-day perception of it as a leisure
time activity (Campbell and Smith 2003;
Rosecrance 1985; Rossol 2001) – and how
the arguments for and against casinos have
become increasingly irrelevant in the 21st

century. My contention is that any
examination of the arguments for and against
casinos independently of their social and
cultural contexts and the political and
economic interests of either side, can only
cover part of the picture. If we examine them
through a constructivist and structural lenses,
to see how they are the product of
institutional processes, alongside broad
trends and changes in society and morality
(which, in part, reflect conventional thinking
of the social elites), we may gain a deeper
understanding of these arguments. Moreover,
we would find the question of their respective
veracity or authenticity is less significant in
this debate than the fact that these arguments
are nearly identical to those made about
gambling behaviour in general, and that
changes in society’s attitudes toward
gambling in general have paved the way for
the establishment of casinos on a wide scale.
The Changes in the Social Perceptions of
Gambling Throughout the Years
The process by which societies judge
whether certain behaviours are risky is based
not only on objective evaluations of
probability and cost-benefit analysis, but is
also a product of social trends and discourses
that construct knowledge and disseminate it
(Klinke and Renn 2002). This knowledge is
promoted and supported by institutions and
by individuals in positions of social power
for their own benefit, who also decide who
is authorized to speak on the topic and who
is not, and which arguments are considered
true, and which are false (Foucault 1981).
While social attitudes toward some
concepts and behaviours remains the same
over the years, others are considered more
open to debate (Schneider and Ingram 1993).
Gambling behaviour is one such example,
which, despite being a very ancient practice
that transcends national boundaries and
cultures, has notably and consistently met
with much social ambivalence and tension.
A review of the literature on this topic in
Western society – especially in the U.S. and
Canada – reveals three main and successive
social perceptions of gambling: from a sin or
a vice, to sickness, and finally to the
commonly held view of it today as a leisure
pastime (Campbell and Smith 2003;
Rosecrance 1985; Rossol 2001). Unlike the
former two, which view gambling as
something essentially negative, the latter
emphasizes its aspects of play, fun, and
leisure time of an individual’s free choosing.
Each of these social perceptions involves
arguments for and against gambling that
reflect the social and moral norms of their
respective periods. The changes that have
taken place over the years in these
perceptions are the result of politically- and
economically-motivated changes in values
and social processes that have paved the way
to the social legitimacy of casino gambling
and the establishment of a flourishing and
profitable gambling industry in the 21st
century.
The moralistic attitude toward gambling
that prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries
and earlier was promulgated by religious
Puritan groups and institutions who
regarded gambling as sinful, criminal and
immoral, and contrary to values such as hard
work, frugality and family integrity
(Cosgrave and Klassen 2001; Dombrick 1996;
Levy 2010; Preston et al. 1998). The common
assumption was that gamblers who lost their
money would inevitably turn to criminal
activity to recoup their losses and support
their habit, leading to a general rise in crime
in the society. Moreover, since in gambling
one might earn a great deal of money with
almost no effort, it was perceived as

undermining the values of perseverance and
self-discipline, and the working class’s
willingness to engage in hard work.
The transition from viewing gambling as
a sin or deviant behaviour to the viewing it
an illness may be traced to the rise in the
influence of the psychological outlook from
the 1920s onwards, in the wake of scholars
such as Edmund Bergler (1957). The
psychological view that a gambler was
someone who is driven by a subconscious
urge to lose, rather than an immoral person
as such, was adopted by the National Council
on Compulsive Gambling, which actively
supported research and funded projects
aimed at educating the public about the
compulsive gambling illness (Greenberg
1980). Final confirmation that this view had
entered mainstream thinking came with the
American Psychiatric Association’s decision
in 1980 to include gambling in its Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-III) (Rossol 2001) under the heading
of Impulse Control Disorders. This
established clear diagnostic criteria for
determining whether someone was a
pathological gambler – such as repeated
failures to control the habit, a rise in the stakes
needed to invoke the required thrill, etc. This
approach was consistent with a broader trend
toward medicalization of other behaviours,
such as homosexuality and alcoholism. The
fact that gambling and problem gambling
affected many in the middle class also helped
to promote this attitude, since when a deviant
behaviour afflicts the middle class, it is more
likely to be medicalized (Conrad and
Schneider 1980).
The identification and definition of
gambling as a pathological behaviour and
illness was a turning point in the social
perception of gambling, which in turn had a
two-fold effect on gambling-related policies
and research. On the one hand, the notion
that gambling was an illness, with all the
problems that this entailed – harm to the
individual who cannot control his habit and
to his family, and the attendant social and
economic costs – played a key part in the
arguments of opponents to the legalization
of gambling. On the other hand, the fact that
gambling was no longer regarded a moral
failing or a sin but as a proclivity afflicting
only a small percentage of the population
with a particular makeup or characteristics,
made it possible to promote the essentially
utilitarian argument that most people could
derive pleasure from such activity without
undue harm (Flaehlich 2008). Despite the
problematic nature of the notion that the
suffering of the few is acceptable provided
the rest of the population is enjoying itself
(Borrell and Boulet 2007), this is one of the
most common arguments heard today in
favour of the widespread existence of
gambling and casinos.
Other trends have also contributed to
the legitimacy that gambling has acquired in
recent decades, and to its transformation into
a recreational leisure activity. The first of
these is the weakening of the church’s status
as the arbiter of moral standards in society,
and changes in the social attitudes in many
Western countries toward work,
consumption and fiscal prudence in the wake
of a shift from a religious-moral outlook to a
capitalist one (Chambers 2011; Cosgrave and
Klassen 2001; Eadington 1996; Smith 1996;
Young 2010). The values of pleasure,
narcissism, immediate gratification, self-
promotion, getting rich quick, and excessive
consumerism have edged aside the previously
cherished value of hard work, as gambling
for profit and the commodification of
gambling became socially acceptable

(Cosgrave and Klassen 2001). They are also
a reflection, and caricature, of the new
fundamental and fixed values of Western
society, and a manifestation of the profound
change that has taken place in the American
dream with regard to individual fulfillment
(Abt and McGarrin 1992).
Perhaps the biggest factor behind this
change has been the entry of the state into
the gambling domain, as a key and dominant
player. States and governments play a major
part in normalizing, legitimizing and
legalizing gambling for profit (Pavalko 2004).
Faced with limited financial resources, many
governments have come to see gambling as a
major source of revenue – a kind of voluntary
tax that helps to rein in increased taxation
on the population as a whole (Cosgrave and
Klassen 2001; McMillen 1996; Pavalko 2004).
However, once governments assume a vested
political and economic interest in gambling,
they effectively lose the moral right to argue
against it (Eadington 1996), and help to blur
the moraland social arguments involved, and
entrench the definition of gambling as a
leisure activity (Pavalko 2004). The result is
an intricate weave of laws and regulations
backed up by a web of arguments in support
of gambling, which together have facilitated
the establishment of a thriving and readily
accessible gambling industry (Cosgrave and
Klassen 2001; Preston et al. 1998) in which
casino gambling plays a significant and
central role.
Once gambling was legalized in many
Western countries, the focus of the critical
discourse shifted to its institutional forms and
to the gambling operators, rather than on the
issue of gambling per se (Dombrik 1996).
Whereas previously the debate had centered
mainly on the individual and his weaknesses
by psychologizing and highlighting the
problems associated with gambling, there
was now an additional dimension that
emphasized the structural-functional critique
of the state’s active role in promoting this
behaviour, of the gambling infrastructure,
and of its socio-cultural role in society (Abt
and McGarrin 1992; Borrell and Boulet 2007;
Cosgrave and Klassen 2001; Dombrink 1996;
Frey 1984).
In particular, the criticism leveled against
the state was that it exploited the negative
social perceptions of gambling to justify its
regulation of gambling, while simultaneously
marketing it to the public and being its main
beneficiary, citing arguments from the
aforementioned Ethics of Tolerance. This
criticism is rooted in neo-liberal ideology and
policies that call for individual freedom,
entrepreneurship, and free market, whereby
entrepreneurs should be allowed to operate
freely in many fields as possible – including
gambling. According to the neo-liberal
thinking, the state’s role is to pave the way
for the free market to form and for
entrepreneurs to operate in it, and even take
part in it itself, as one of the players (Harvey
2005). Therefore, it must not only legitimize
and support gambling, but also refrain from
subjecting it to regulation, as this hampers
competition and contradicts the ideas of the
free market economy (Cosgrave and Klassen
2001). In this regard, it is also worth
examining whether decision to gamble is
indeed truly the individual’s genuine choice,
or merely the result of a well-oiled marketing
machine designed to profit from promoting
notions such as pleasure, free will, and the
thrill of risk-taking, while in reality
manipulating him into choosing what the
marketers want him to choose all along.
The legalization of gambling and its
regulation by the state have made it more
accessible, which has given rise to a new type
of gambler – the sort who might not have

considered gambling if it were still illegal
(Pavalko 2004). The fact that some people
gamble, only because they believe that if it is
sanctioned by the state then it must be
acceptable, is problematic, because it means
that, by promoting gambling, the state has
effectively exchanged its relationship of trust,
as the people’s custodian, for one of economic
expediency and utilitarianism, by
emphasizing the good that can come from
the proceeds of gambling, such as supporting
education or other socially popular causes
(Cosgrave and Klassen 2001).
As for gambling’s wider social purpose,
the pro-gambling lobby claims that from a
socio-cultural standpoint, gambling
represents an established recreational activity
that compensates for some of the
unsatisfactory and dysfunctional aspects of
contemporary society (McMillen 1996). It
argues that in a modern society, with its
highly regimented social demand for routine,
order and stability, gambling and casinos
provide a legitimate opportunity to
experience brief thrills, to test one’s courage
and to practice decision-taking skills, without
exposure to the real risks of life (Abt and
McGarrin 1992; Frey 1984). As such, it
provides a kind of ‘safety valve’ that regulates
the stresses in the individual’s life, contributes
to society’s stability and protects its
equilibrium (Deveruex 1980). Ironically, this
dovetails with the Marxist view that gambling
is a kind of ‘opium for the masses,’ which
vents any feelings of hostility and distracts
them from the range of needs that are left
unfulfilled by capitalist society (Kaplan 1984;
Nibert 2000).
These structural forms, therefore, shift
the spotlight away from the advisability of
gambling per se toward a debate about the
state’s role and the social trends that enable
gambling to exist—underlining Pavalko’s
view (2004) that when the decision is taken
to legalize a particular type of gambling, it is
not only moral arguments that come into
play, but political and economic interests, as
well.
Conclusion
This response paper has demonstrated
how the arguments cited for and against
gambling are the product of a broader context
involving social, political and economic
changes and forces, and driven by certain
interest groups in a bid to create a hegemonic
discourse. Moreover, to preserve its
dominance, this hegemony allows for
dissenting views, but only in circumscribed
form, so that their impact is minimized
(Gramsci 1992).
In this regard, researchers and
academics, who serve as active agents and
form an integral part of the social forces
shaping knowledge, have a social and ethical
responsibility in their research activities
(Borrell and Boulet 2007). Besides positivist
and post-positivist studies that place the focus
of the gambling problem on the individual
and his weaknesses, or which examine the
effect of gambling through cost-benefit
analyses, (occasionally to the benefit of the
interests of political elites and decision-
makers), we must also contribute to the
critical discourse of gambling, to address
questions such as: What is the dominant
discourse about gambling in a given
country?; Which entities and actors are
promoting this discourse, and which are
absent from it?; What are the interests
underpinning the discourse and the
dominant arguments raised in it?; and When
the discourse changes, why does it do so? The
answers to these questions would give a more

detailed social, political and economic picture
and help to examine the decisions taken about
gambling behaviour, beyond simplistic pro
and con arguments.
Like any behaviour, gambling assumes
its significance from the social and cultural
context in which it occurs (Abt et al. 1985;
McMillen 1996; Schwartz and Raento 2011),
and is affected by many factors. The
complexity and multi-dimensionality of this
phenomenon requires a deeper and more
critical observation, to reveal, as it were, all
faces of the dice.
References
ABT, V. and MCGURRIN, M. C.(1992). Commercial Gambling and Values in American Society: The Social Construction
of Risk. Journal of Gambling Studies 8: 413–420.
ABT, V., MCGURRIN, C. and SMITH, J. F. (1985). Toward a Synoptic Model of Gambling Behavior. Journal of Gambling
Behavior 1(2): 79–88.
BERGLER, E. (1957). The Psychology of Gambling. New York. Hill and Wang.
BORRELL, J. and BOULET, J. (2007). Values, Objectivity, and Bias in Gambling Research. In Smith., G., Hodgins., D. C.
and Williams, R. J. (Eds.) Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies. London. Elsevier: 567–592.
CAMPBELL, C. S. and SMITH, G. J. (2003). Gambling in Canada - From Vice to Disease to Responsibility: A Negotiated
History. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 20: 121–149.
CHAMBERS, K. G. (2011). Gambling for Profit: Lotteries, Gaming Machines, and Casino in Cross-national Focus. Toronto,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
CONRAD, P. and SCHNEIDER, J. W. (1980). Deviance and Medicalization. St. Louise. Mosby.
COSGRAVE, J. F. (2006). Editor's Introduction: Gambling, Risk, and Late Capitalism. In Cosgrave, J. F. (Ed.) The
Sociology of Risk and Gambling Reader. New York, NY. Routledge: 1–24.
COSGRAVE, J. and KLASSEN, T. R. (2001). Gambling Against the State: The State and the Legitimation of Gambling.
Current Sociology 49: 1–15.
DEVEREUX, E. C. (1980). Gambling and the Social Structure: A Sociological Study of Lotteries and Horseracing in Contemporary
America. New York. Arno Press.
DOMBRINK, J. (1996). Gambling and the Legalization of Vice. In McMillen, J. (Ed.) Gambling Cultures. London.
Routledge: 43–64.
EADINGTON, W. R. (1996). The Legalization of Casinos: Policy Objectives, Regulatory Alternatives, and Cost/
Benefit Considerations. Journal of Travel Research 34: 3–8.
EADINGTON, W. R. (1998). Casino Gambling - Origins, Trends, and Impacts. In Meyer-Arendt, K. J. and Hartmann,
R. (Eds.) Casino Gambling in America: Origins, Trends and Impacts. New York. Cognizant Communication Corporation:
3–15.
EADINGTON, W. R. (1999). The Economics of Casino Gambling. Journal of Economic Perspectives 13: 173–192.
EADINGTON, W. R. (2003). Measuring the Costs from Permitted Gambling: Concepts and Categories in Evaluating
Gambling's Consequences. Journal of Gambling Studies 19: 185–213.
FLAEHLICH, C. (2008). "I Just Wanna Play": Women and Electronic Gambling Machines (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.
FOUCAULT, M. (1981). The Order of Discourse. In Young, R. (Ed.) Untying the Text: A Post-structuralist Reader. Boston.
Routledge & Kegan Paul: 48–77.
FREY, J. H. (1984). Gambling: A Sociological Review. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
474(1): 107–121.
GIACOPASSI, D., NICHOLS, M. and STITT, B. G. (1999). Attitudes of Community Leaders in New Casino Jurisdictions
Regarding Casino Gambling's Effects on Crime and Quality of Life. Journal of Gambling Studies 15: 123–147.
GRAMSCI, A. (1992). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York. International Publishers.

GREENBERG, H. (1980). The Psychology ofGambling. In Kaplan., H., Freedman., A. and Sadock, B. (Eds) Comprehensive
Textbook of Psychiatry III. New York, NY. Williams & Wilkins.
HARVEY, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford & New-York: Oxford University Press.
KAPLAN, H. R. (1984). The Social and Economic Impact of the State Lotteries. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 474(1): 91–106.
KLINKE, A. and RENN, O. (2002). A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk Based, precaution-
Based, and Discourse Based Strategies. Risk Analysis 22: 1071–1094.
LEVY, M. (2010). Towards a Weberian Theory ofGambling: The Rationalization of Legal Gamblingin Israel. International
Journal of Gambling Studies 10: 207–220.
MCGOWAN, R. A. (2001). Government and the Transformation of the Gaming Industry. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar.
MCMILLEN, J. (1996). Understanding Gambling. In McMillen, J. (Ed) Gambling Cultures. London. Routledge: 6–42.
NIBERT, D. (2000). Hitting the Lottery Jackpot: Government and Taxing of Dreams. New York. Monthy Review Press.
ORFORD, J. (2005). Disabling the Public Interest: Gambling Strategies and Policies for Britain. Addiction 100: 1219–
1225.
PAVALKO, R. M. (2004). Gambling and Public Policy. Public Integrity 6: 333–348.
PARSONS, T. (1957). The Social System. New York. Free Press.
PRESTON, F. W., BERNHARD, B. J., HUNTER, R. E. and Bybee, S. L. (1998). Gambling as Stigmatized Behavior:
Regional Relabeling and the Law. The Annals of the American Academy 556: 186–196.
REUTER, P. (1983). Disorganized Crime: The Economics of the Visible Hand. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.
ROSECRANCE, J. (1985). Compulsive Gambling and the Medicalization of Deviance. Social Problem 32: 275–284.
ROSSOL, J. (2001). The Medicalization of Deviance as an Interactive Achievement: The Construction of Compulsive
Gambling. Symbolic Interaction 24: 315–341.
SCHNEIDER, A. and INGRAM, H. (1993). Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and
Policy. American Political Science Review 87: 334–347.
SCRIVEN, M. (1995). The Philosophical Foundations of Las Vegas. Journal of Gambling Studies 11: 61–75.
SHWARTZ, D. G. and RAENTO, P. (2011). Introduction: Gambling, Space and Time. In Raento, P. and Schwartz, D. G.
(Eds) Gambling, Space, and Time. Reno & Las Vegas. University of Nevada Press: 1–14.
SMITH, J. F. (1996). When it's Bad it's Better. In McMillen, J. (Ed) Gambling Cultures. London. Routledge: 101–115.
YOUNG, M. (2010). Gambling, Capitalism and the State: Towards a New Dialectic of the Risk Society? Journal of
Consumer Culture 10: 254–273.
Submitted: June 28, 2013
Continued...

This paper responds to the probe
presented by Shani: Are we asking the right
questions to address the ethics of gambling?
The lead author attempts to answer the
question by offering an ethical assessment of
gambling in the context of addiction, work
ethic and greed, unproductive disposition,
crime, and exposure to alcoholism and
prostitution. Of course, a complete
understanding of the benefits and costs, and
net benefits of gambling is crucial but at this
juncture of scholarship inquiry, what is being
overlooked is the need to examine numerous
ways in which gambling-related externalities
can be mitigated or minimized (Ndubisi et
al. 2012; Spence and Bourlakis 2012). The
ethical debate on gambling is too complex
and while much has been accomplished by
previous literature in offering simple
narratives of the manner in which gambling
is immoral or imposes a drain on the
environment and existing resources, much
remains to be done in the context of balancing
competing interests and minimizing harm
(Chhabra 2007; Kindt 1998; Yani-de-Soriano
et al. 2012). What is needed is a plea for
mature ethical reasoning to develop
meaningful benchmarks. Dawkins and Lewis
(2003) argue that a business needs to
acknowledge its bigger role towards society
beyond profitability. To accomplish this, first
a clear tone is required of the kind of role a
gambling business is expected to play; the
next step then will be to figure out a
comprehensive framework inclusive of
ethical, legal and accountable benchmarks
(Lindgreen et al. 2009).
Ethics of Gambling: Minimizing Harm
Deepak Chhabra is Associate professor at the School of Community Resources and
Development, 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 550, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
B5004-0690, USA. e-mail: Deepak.chhabra@asu.edu
Emerging literature considers numerous
perspectives as appropriate to counter
gambling-related harm. For instance, several
authors argue that a public health approach
is the appropriate cure because of the
extensive reporting of social ills and drain on
the society such as crime, family quarrels,
bankruptcies, and alcoholism (Adams and
Rossen 2012; Jawed and Griffiths 2010; Yani-
de-Soriano et al. 2012). It is argued that
public health interventions can impose a
check on threats associated with commercial
gambling and help build healthy and
harmonious social environments. According
to Adams and Rossen, an all-inclusive public
health perspective calls for the following
(2012: 1053):
changes to regulation to ensure that gambling
devices are safe and that the interest of those
who use them are well protected, technological
interventions to allowgamblers to much better
track and control their expenditure of time
and money, systems to allow the earliest
possible identification of those with a
developing gambling problem, and to facilitate
early intervention, and prohibitions on
dangerous marketing such as promotions
involving children, free food and drink, or
rewards for gambling expenditure.
A review of documented literature
shows that several governments and
regulators across the globe have embraced
the rhetoric of public health, but it remains
to be seen whether these expressions
transform into action and to the extent they
succeed in mitigating harm. Research
discussions centered on these challenges are

an essential element of good public health
practice. Also, since gambling is a public
health issue, an extended network of
stakeholders and supply chain players need
to be considered (Yani-de-Soriano et al. 2012).
Examples include those involved in
intervention and problem gambling services,
social service providers, department of public
safety, financial institutions, church groups,
local residents, current and potential patrons,
and tourism stakeholders such as restaurants,
souvenir shops, gasoline stations, and lodging
(Tetrevova 2011; Yani-de-Soriano et al. 2012).
Existing agendas aimed to minimize
harm include: formulating an integrated CSR-
Supply Chain approach (Adams and Rossen
2012); public health framework (Tetretova
2011); use of ethical marketing techniques
(Blaszcynski et al. 2004); and establishment
of a mature ethical reasoning framework.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
broadly refers to activities pursued by a
company with regard to its societal
responsibility or stakeholder obligations
(Brown and Dacin 1997). Crane and Matten
(2004) developed one of the most popular
CSR frameworks with a list of expectations
from businesses: ensuring profitability;
remain law abiding; minimizing harm; and
evidence of good corporate citizenship. The
integrated CSR and stakeholder perspectives
require social responsibility towards
stakeholders who are impacted by the
business’s practices. Several indicators of CSR
are presented by literature. Adamoniene and
Astromskiene (2010) present key
components as: profitability, good working
conditions, friendly decision-making;
corporate responsibility, sense of citizenship;
corporate philanthropy. Pavlik & Belcik (2010
cited in Tetrevova 2011) define CSR as
embracing the three Ps of social responsibility
in areas of economics (Profitability), social
environment (people) and natural
environment (Planet). A Corporate Social
Performance Model is presented by Wartick
and Cochran (1985) (see Figure 1).
Principles Processes Policies
Corporate Social
Responsibilities
 Economic
 Legal
 Ethical
 Discretionary
Corporate Social
Responsiveness
 Reactive
 Defensive
 Accommodative
 Proactive
Social Issues
Management
 Issues
Identification
 Issues
Analysis
 Response
Development
Direct at:
The Social
Contract of
Business
Business as Moral
Agent
Directed at:
The Capacity to
Respond to
Changing Societal
Conditions
Managerial
Approaches to
Developing
Responses
Direct at:
Minimizing
Surprises
Determining
Effective
Corporate
Social Policies
Philosophical
Orientation
Institutional
Orientation
Organizational
Orientation
Benefits of CSR are reported as many
including enhanced corporate acceptance
(Palazzo and Richter 2005). However, it is
also argued that reporting CSR commitment
such as corporate philanthropy can become
questionable as it suggests donations to
organizations not directly involved in
preventing and minimizing gambling related
harm or treating the problem of gamblers.
Yani-de Soriano et al. (2012) highlight issues
between CSR and the online gambling
industry in the United Kingdom. Hancock et
al. (2008) argue that the governments today
are expected to adopt more proactive
consumer protection strategies using a new
systems approach such as making use of
loyalty data and POS (point of sales) data to
help track down and identify problem
Figure 1. Corporate Social Performance
Model
Source: Wartick and Cochran (1985: 760)

gamblers or identify those at the threshold
so that protective interventions can be
crafted. A case study example is presented
by Tetrevova (2011). He examined corporate
social responsibility in the Czech gambling
industry. Tetrevova’s description of CSR is
drawn from five areas: 1) Economic; 2) Social;
3) Environmental; 4) Ethical and; 5)
Philanthropic. He conducted a pilot study of
the gambling industry in Czech to determine
the extent to which it was capable of
addressing these perspectives. His study
stated that all criteria were met by the
industry albeit the ethical area remained
questionable.
Adams and Rossen (2012) aptly point
out that the efforts of intervention services
can only be worthwhile if parallel efforts to
impose a check, on those, who are vulnerable,
exist at different levels. The authors suggest
an integrated public health approach to
minimize harm by integrating three
fundamental elements: 1) harm minimization
framework; 2) an outline of how long term
strategic plan which incorporates ongoing
and informed responses from the local
residents in addition to offering them
empowerment to respond in a manner they
prefer and; 3) political accountability to
ensure sincere and accurate responses
(Adams and Rossen 2012). The authors in a
later publication compare these elements to
the motion of a jaw ‘where harm
minimization move top-down from policy to
intervention, health promotion initiatives
moving bottom-up from empowered
communities to managed environments and
accountability initiatives seeking ways to
ensure that the jaws had sufficient force
within the political environment to bite onto
its target’ (Adams and Rossen 2012: 1052).
New Zealand is used as a case study to
discuss how progressive changes at different
levels are embraced by different interest
groups in bringing a positive influence and
checking increasing levels of gambling
consumption. Examples include crucial
transformations within key agencies, a broad
spectrum of initiatives embraced by social
welfare agencies such as Salvation Army and
the Problem Gambling Foundation (such as
teaming up with local communities to raise
awareness of issues associated with gambling
and offering support to craft programmes to
deal with damage caused by gambling), more
regulation at the government level in
monitoring gambling venues, and developing
a harm minimization framework. The
authors noted phenomenal progress in terms
of a variety of initiatives such as health
promotion, community assessment criteria,
gambling policies developed by the local
government and development/training of
work-force focusing on public health. It was
also noted that the gambling marketing
campaigns made extensive efforts to embrace
social marketing techniques to advocate that
the community needs to take ownership of
the social ills caused by gambling.
However, few years down the road,
issues emerged associated with transforming
the public health perspective into reality and
something doable (Adams and Rossen 2012).
Priorities of government and the health
sponsorship Council shifted. The political
and lobbying nature of the gambling industry
was exposed. One might ask: what doomed
this public health approach and what lessons
can be gained from this failure? For instance,
it was noted that there was a slant towards
more consultation from the gambling
industry which marginalized the views of
other stakeholders and public interest groups.
Also, conflicting role of different government
agencies and split responsibilities was noted.
Another oversight was a view of limiting

The Ethics of Gambling

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a The Ethics of Gambling

Similar a The Ethics of Gambling (20)

Más de Anochi.com.

Más de Anochi.com. (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Ethics of Gambling