GAMBLING—THE MISSING LINK.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 9

GAMBLING—THE MISSING LINK.

TO THE EDITOR 01' 'THE rnLSS." j j Sir, —Having for many years been in- ! f terested in "the ethics of gambling." 1 | : have quite enjoyed your leading ardc.'es ' i in to-duy's and Saturday's is?i:os. ;md \ I the piqued, if hardly piquant. rejoinder : i of the C.C.C. May I try to supply a| i missing link on both side?!' 'While the j Council may allowed ro be correct | in their distinction between risks j ] "created'' and natnr.il risks ''taken.'' i your point in to-day's issue • is that i ' created or not, risks are "taken" both : in gambling and legitimate hii-iness. • It may be qui to true that .crmMii::: in ! business is no belter thi'ii gambling ;•: ; Riecarton, but it is not true that ail : speculative business is ".•icmnlin-.t." ! Probably Tint a small vropcrtion t;f < such business deserves that name ■■■::<] ■ to use it appcr.rs to ine perilotish near j becrgincj /lie question, j I remember this matter boiucr <hi-f.!i. : ed out .'4O years aso with great aiiiliiy ! between the London '"Spectator"' and I various correspondents on the appear- ; anee of an article in the "Oiintciii- j porarv Review" V>y AV. Dougia* M;it- j kenzie, in which the latter brought out • the following points:— I (First): Business and bctiii'.r are. ; both modes of transferring prop-.Mty or i ownership, and both arc b:!.-i d upon ap- i proximately nieaMirahle cl'iiK-uts of ' ' chance and knowledge. Both may have no other conscious ultimate end than laudable self-satisfaction. I (Secondly): Business and betting' differ in the Treatment accorded to iheso elements. In business ihe ( chance element is consciously discounted in order that, to the utmost possible, the transfer may take place on ihe knowledge basis, and the irroaier that knowledge, the easier the transaction. TVi betting, stripped of such tions as involve the personal skill of the bettor, thr> essence of the transaction lies in the discounting of the knowledge, to the utmost possible, in order that the transfer mav take place on the basis of remaining chance. i Of this, the totalisator. as the chosen , acme of measured chance, is itself the j best proof. Obviously, in private busiAess, the ' consciousness of the balance of this process can be know, only to each transactor himself, but the rules or standards which are observed in the various classes of business by inert of repute are proofs on the business side, of , the truth of the above distinction. There may be gambling in speculative | business, plenty of it, but it does not i j lie in taking risks, hut in delighting in i them in preference to discounting them, j The nest distinction brought out by this correspondence of '9l was that in business the actor makes, and ought to make, every effort to bring about the intended result, or else he is a' rogue; in betting of all kinds, the actor must ; do nothing to effect the result, or else j he is a rogue, save when avowedly bet- j ting on his own skill. v ! The third distinction arises out of this, that the legitimate business of speculation is of the nature of a .quid pro quo. in which each party gets what ? he wants. The haggling of the. market and its alterations being merely the attempt to adjust more or less roughly the joint element in the estimate, of exchange. The excitement is just as great and enjoyable as that of watching the totalisator, but the object is bo surely different—viz., to produce I action, not inaction, and to mutual 'satisfaction, not to. that of one party only. The third great distinction beI tween honest business adventure and betting transactions is that while both I may have in view only self-satisfaction or self-devel pmeut, if one cares to givo . it a higher title, yet the business man, j in order to servo himself, is ready to i serve his neighbour, whether it be an ! individual of the public generally; while ; . the bettor's-anxiety, beyond tho mere | excitement, is to serve himself, regard-' : less of his neighbour. This willingness or callousness 4s -the'-real moral crux of the gambling, problem. Hence; if this assumption be ..valid, the successful ad- '< venturer who has, served the public ; better than he expected, deserves a < greater return, and is not benefitting i himself only by "taking" unearned money. In. the. illustration you sup- s Elied, the buyer ! of the house in March. ] as not only satisfied the heed of the ' seller, for ready money,. at the time of ' purchase, but has, till the time of his i profitable sale in June or September, < assumed responsibility of ownership, that is, trusteeship for property with- < out which no civilised community can exist. If the demand be the greater. } so is the measure of trust and the j higher the trust in any department of . life the better should be the pay; on both scores the profit is "earned." Is not all this "camouflaged" by the popular iise of the business terin "investment" for gambling transactions. and the use of the term "gambling" for thJ discounted chance in business transactions? I hope these recollections of a former controversy may prove ap- j posite, and fit in just where the parties t m yaur correspondence may have failed c to grasp one another's argument. c May I aßk if tho exposure of tho t . morally wrong element in any, prac- s tises, however reprehensible, justifies j, the wholesale condemnation of the of- q fenders whose guilt must dopend on ' n their'knowledge, which without any ], stretch of charity one may regard in j this case as exceedingly small? And t how far the CouncU reckon it incorrect r to charge men with tho wholesale con- v demriation of the Riecarton throng be- c cause they hare pressed to the bitter t end the logical condemnation of the f principle. Space forbids- my mention- c ing' many other interesting points j raised in'the ethics of gambling by r the article referred to, and since pub- 0 lished in book form. Being merelv a r sojourner here, I' subscribe myself,— q Yours, etc., + SCOTTJS VIATOR. \