In my own intuitive view as thinker over time...

Isnt ethics supposed to be the proper logical educated study of what is right and wrong, how humans (or generalize it to any higher conscious being eg even AI eventually) should behave (live their lives, organize society) in various situations by trying to be careful and consistent and thorough with the examination of the situation rather than dogmatic or simplistic about it? In some contrast i imagine morality to be the core code of behavior that people unquestionably apply/accept (rather rigid approach) (taught to them by their early and current environment) and maybe they derive their worldview from it too on more complex issues when not willing to travel the intellectual distance and examine things better, more carefully, as they might deserve. On occasion of course there will be agreement, hopefully on the most elementary points of interest.

So i view ethics as the top process/field of study that examines properly how to live and the important decisions/actions and their merits and decides what is optimal under certain assumptions of utility that are originally agreed upon/shown logically as important or empirically accepted as such over time. The ethical choice may be immoral in the eyes of others on occasion etc. Ethics adapts to the complexity of the situation better because it is more thorough about it.

I suppose the progress of a society can be also judged by how its morals appear to be derived from well thought ethics and allowed to evolve.

I expect a serious thinker will modify their moral code of behavior as they age to match better their ethics (ethical) conclusions over time as these evolve from their experiences, the careful personal study of the world, as well as their overall education and cultural progress enabled by their environment.


How about your view Dereds?

On the distinction between ethics and morals I don't think there's a particularly important one, different philosophers have defined a distinction to help clarify some argument but it's not generally agreed.

On the question of the morality of poker, it can be immoral it doesn't necessarily have to be. There are actually some complex considerations and they'd have to be unpacked.

Poker players pay taxes on money which most likely would not have been taxed. To say they provide no value is just not true. How is trading options any different from poker? If anything, there is more asymmetric information in the stock market than there is in poker.

Obviously, most professions create more value to society than poker and it is something I have struggled with for a long time.

First of all, stealing wallets involves the initiation of force against someone. The person whose wallet is stolen is not a voluntary participant. Opponents at the poker are voluntary participants who know they are putting their money at risk.

Re: the bolded. I owe precisely NOTHING to the collective other than to not initiate force or fraud, nor does the collect owe me anything other tha not to perpetrate force or fraud against me(which, btw, it does in the form of income taxation which was unconstitutional in the US until Amendment XVI).

The claim that insurance has no value is ridiculous, of course.

Do you think motoring insurance ought to be compulsory?

Well, my comment about my occupation was meant to be humorous.

This isn't a politics thread, but no, I don't think the government should compel citizens to buy a commercial product. I'd buy it without the compulsion, because it's the smart thing to do.

just because physical violence is regulated and mental one isn't does not automatically imply it is not "wrong"....
as commented, most wining come from degenerative players that usually have that dopamine pattern of behavior due to inefficient pattern developed in their brain (that you exploit)

both actions take by force....

I am not a clinician, nor do I have access to lab reports on the brain chemistry of my opponents. Neither do you.

Thus the decision to play poker is binary. You either decide that TO YOU, poker is violent and you choose to not play, or decide it isn't and choose to play.

For me, if my opponent(s) actually do have that dopamine pattern, that just defines them to me as prey.

Once again, as I have said many times on this site, poker is by nature a predatory game, so when you play, you are accepting that to win, you must take money from the weak.

So call me immoral or amoral or whatever else you want. I don't give a <bleep>

great post

My take is that ethic and morality come from utility theory. (they are a week form of utility maximizing function weighting in game theory )

Giving we live in a country (a.k.a. society), we should ask yourself where is the long term benefit of poker. Do poker players raise or lower utility function score on aggregate as a society. Answer is no.

Society is a hawk-dove interaction. Hawks are predators based on market inefficiency. Doves are "builders" of society. Hawk strategy should only be allowed if it provides utility. Like for example volatility reduction or fair pricing. This is why algo trading is allowed (but not looked positively upon) and penny stocks pump and dump is not allowed (as it artificially creates inefficiency).

One can easily see that poker creates artificial inefficiency and lowers utility on aggregate.

We as a society also need to keep Hawks relative to Doves fairy low. Or society collapses. This is why regulation is better then free market. As long as there is huge amount of inefficiency it is better to close those down then to let Hawks destroy us.

I think you just answered the question....
rape is also by nature a predatory game....

poker vs rape is the question where do we draw a line in a sand to stop predation.

You say it is in "free will" territory. Once upon a time if you couldn't physical defend yourself as a man you couldn't procreate and have a family. That was ok. No objections. Happens in animals kingdom today.

As society progresses we deemed predatory strategies not so great. So we start to deem them unnecessary. There is a natural progression to reduce them even if it is not from physical violence.

F.e. Signed concession in police questioning from not knowing law is also a form of free will force. That's why we have free lawyers as a mitigation force. And we also have police TELL them they have that right before.

Help and solutions are available for people with brain chemical problems, at least in most civilized places. If I don't play poker, would they still have those problems?

Maybe it can be regarded as a question of ethics (although I agree I'm veering OT), and perhaps there is a contradiction in your position. Nobody is a perfect driver and therefore anyone driving in my vicinity is posing a risk to me, however small. In other words, they are perpetrating a Sklansky force against me.

that is a narrative but not reality

overweight state is purely a brain chemical "problem"

Therefore, as a rational person, you buy insurance. Back when it wasn't compulsory, you paid a little more for being covered for damages/injuries caused by an uninsured driver. You still pay for that now.

"Sin" is a word which calls up a certain excitability within many people but the question should be as to whether gambling has a moral tone or tenor. The answer undoubtedly is yes, there is a moral flavor within poker but this can be said for just about any human activity.

An example is a Buddhist who will not "kill" any living thing including ants or flies and will go out of his way to not do the same. Telling is the Buddhist relationship to money and its source thereof. We, in the west do not give second thoughts to placing our monies in a bank or brokerage but the Buddhist would say that if the money in any way travels to the support of say, armaments for the destruction of men then he could not support such an organization which makes money suspect and of moral character in this case.

The western man would absolutely not be able to live his life style under this type of consideration which in effects makes Buddhism not really in character with the western man.

From the above it can be gleaned that morality, within the human soul, is individually based no matter how many laws or dogmas or commandments to which we are immersed. The morality of the poker table is gained through individual consideration but does not obviate each learning from the other as to its faults or benefits.

It become more difficult when one judges another, dogmatically, thus causing psychic harm to the other; do this! do that! or else ! This type of judgment of the shallow and superficial which becomes coercion which negates the upper paragraphs which see Man as a "free" individuality and the judgmental, with their coercive outlay, deny the "free spirit" as Man.

Coercion , which is the suppression of the "Ego" or "I" of Man is the problem and rears its ugly head in the comprehension of the human balance of Good and its lack thereof, evil.

I suspect is answer is debatable.
I'd wager that most players who play poker, play with no more than what they can afford.
And economists are still in debate on the implications of gambling in the economy.

However if poker teaches people game theory and if knowing game theory the idiots of this world one day realize that the way to win in a table of 9 vs eg Ivey is to cooperate implicitly and split the profits (all else loses unless one is the new world class player etc) then maybe there is hope for this world to realize we need to join forces against our common problems instead of the bs we have going on (like 1% having more than the other 99% and doing bs with it, plus a lot of the 99% multiply like idiot rabbits under extreme crap conditions and most also destroy the atmosphere/climate right now in some manner) .

And so suddenly poker has at least in my case given me an argument i can sell to the masses convincingly with an example they can appreciate.

Clearly the cooperation i am suggesting is vulnerable to defection if each one of them turns at the right moment on others or some other (big) (and then leave) but if they dont (which in society we dont have the ability to just exit) they stand to win permanently instead of experiencing collapse!


Poker has improved my way of thinking. It has also led me to all you people haha!

Piccadilly Jim. I understand that it mystifies you somewhat. The fluidity of the English language, ambiguity in definitions, and common understanding of terms, leaves most without that razor-sharp definition that can be welded like an axe to pummel their opponents in debate. My apologies.

Below are reasonable definitions of Ethics and Morals from a respectable source with explanatory notes, at least I can assume you will read them*.

From the OED:Ethics

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/ethics

Morals

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...oral#moral__11

On another note, Sin is a great word. One of Western Man's greatest in fact. But it should be used sparingly - to impart greater impact and forcefulness; like the old-time flying wedge in the early days of American Football.

* And yes the words are more or less interchangeable as given in the OED.

The choice to play a game is an equalizing decision. The circumstances of any individual who makes that choice is equal because that is the deciding factor for the game to happen. To imply this simple choice equals passive violence to losing players is not a connection I make. It's sportsman to have compassion for competitors in my book. So a person who chooses to play and suffers from it has my compassion. What remains is responsibility for the choice to play and unless I have evidence that person is not operating with faculty of choice I can't relate to that as a general assumption.

Reallly like no one correct answer here, as I think a person should decide for themselves and if it doesn't seem right, by thought or feeling or experience choose carefully whether or not to play.

Why would a prosperous society make a problem with gambling? It's riggable wealth movement. I like wealth that moves and grows. The social problem isn't gambling, it's individuals.

Ah right so you meant "a" difference rather than "the" difference? Cool but yeah that's not the only way the distinction has been defined where one has been defined.

Help is. Solutions aren't.

Sklansky force? I don't want David being an eponym

As other people have pointed out, this is just total bull****, and one of the great delusions of our age.

Even in the very best case (if you ignore widespread selection bias and fraud, see: why most published research findings are false), the data shows that a little bit can be done for a small percentage of people, and absolutely nothing can be done for the large majority.

Perfect, universal solutions are not, I agree.