In an interview, Gordon Giles queries whether or not a national lottery would be considered immoral.
The only way to consider the moral worth of anything is to gain familiarity with it. Regarding the National Lottery, this is not as simple as one may think (although it is not impossible). Unfortunately, many accounts of the Lottery carry their own implicit moral judgments. For instance:
- The National Lottery lets people win money while helping artists and charities.”
- The National Lottery is a tax on the poor, exploiting their sole chance to escape poverty and utilizing the earnings to subsidize rich spending.”
- The National Lottery allows individuals to enjoy a harmless flutter and raises money for worthy organizations.
- The National Lottery causes addiction, preoccupation, avarice, and selfishness.”
- By playing the National Lottery, every adult can purchase an equal chance to match six random numbers. The financial gain is purely determined by the congruency of the selection and the degree and extent of equally random success among other participants.”
These are only five of the many conceivable descriptors, and I have no doubt that the audience can come up with many more. On top of them, we are able to add other ‘factual’ comments, some of which are loaded as well:
- “Since the Lottery has begun, inquiries to Gamblers Anonymous have increased by 17%,” a)
- For example: b) “The odds of winning the Lottery prize are one in fourteen million.”
- You have a better chance of being murdered than winning the Lottery prize.”
- Taxes account for 12% of Lottery earnings. A total of 28% is donated to various causes.
- To put it another way: e) “In some communities, where money is tight, some people are spending £5-10 per week on tickets and scratchcards, representing up to 25% of their disposable income.”
I think most readers will agree with some of these claims while disagreeing with others. You won’t have to look far to find an advocate for any of them, and they all claim to be correct. Trying to find someone who is willing to accept all of them could take a lot of time and effort. I have merely made an attempt to define the National Lottery. Obviously, we are all aware of its existence, but when describing it, we often appeal to ethical principles.
Lottery discussions inevitably turn to matters of finance and/or luck. This is inevitable since the Lottery, like all forms of gambling, bets money on an event whose outcome is still uncertain.
Some gambling requires skill, such as betting on horses and pools based on form to make an “intelligent” wager. The National Lottery is exempt. Betting on a horse or the weather is immune to the ‘gambler’s fallacy’ Simon Blackburn’s Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy explains. The fallacious gambler assumes an outcome will occur because it has or hasn’t before. “Stay with the run” makes sense when betting on horses, but not a lottery. People who always bet on the same Lottery numbers may believe they would win more often if they do so. Others stick to the same numbers each week because they’re lazy or have a sentimental affinity to them and have no illusions about winning more.
The lottery’s randomness distinguishes it from other gaming. Anyone who watches the Lottery on national television each Saturday has seen how randomness has been raised to an art form. Even the sets of balls used are decided by chance. They’ll have observed the Lottery’s focus on money. The purpose seems to be winning prizes. Philosophically, getting money isn’t interesting. Giving millions of pounds to people doesn’t bother me, but I’m sure many would criticize the quantity of the awards, if not the premise of providing them.
I suppose cash incentives aren’t the only draw. The desire to win affirms unpredictability, individuality, and instant satisfaction, all characteristics of late 20th-century British society. So, the Lottery kidnapped the nation’s soul.
The Lottery is random. Rich or poor, individuals or syndicates, seasoned punters, or first-time buyers can win. Justice and fairness are not suitable (it wouldn’t be ‘unjust’ if a rich tycoon bought one ticket and won £22 million), because while every purchaser has an equal chance, the Lottery is subject to the same allegation made against the Poll Tax – that treating individuals equally was not fair. What was mocked then is now embraced. The Poll Tax was regarded as making the poor pay for the rich, but so could the Lottery since ticket sales are highest among the low-income.
Learn More: https://sarkariresultclub.com/lottery-results/
Randomness dehumanizes Lottery participants. A punter’s personality, social standing, race, creed, age, or sex make no difference when they cast their lot. While it’s wrong to discriminate on these grounds, it’s dehumanizing to ignore them. No value remains.
Despite denying our identity, the Lottery fosters individualism. What would you do with £1,000,000? The Lottery has pushed us to ask ourselves this question. Self-focus. Syndicates and charitable donations don’t help. Joining a syndicate increases one’s odds of winning (although in doing so, one lessens the potential prize). Some people may want to donate a big amount of their profits, but we must never forget that money is power and that giving can sublimate a craving for control.
