Problems of the Christian Conscience
We publish here the eighth article of a new Theological Series which we hope will throw light on some of the most disputed ques- tions of conduct.. The Dean of Winchester is well known as the Editor of Essays Catholic and Critical, and an author of other theological works. Next week Mr. Leonard Cather will write upon our Duty to Animals.]
VIII.—Betting and Gambling.
BY TIIE DEAN OF WINCHESTER.
SPHERE 'RE would be a general agreement among thoughtful people that betting and gambling are an evil ; but, when we come to consider in what the evil consists, considerable diversity of opinion is revealed. The simplest view is that of those who maintain that betting and gambling are morally wrong in themselves, in the same sense as for example adultery or theft is wrong ; and that view has already been expressed in this series of articles. But that is not the only possible view, even among those who, like myself, do not indulge in the habit. If I ask myself why I do not indulge in it, I have to admit that the reason probably is that it never had any attractions for me, and fell outside my up- bringing. I believe that . that was a good thing, and could wish my children to be in the same position ; but the fact that a course of action is outside one's traditions and habits does not prove that it is in itself intrinsically wrong ; and that is the position which I am in fact pre- pared to defend. I do not, that is to say, know of any fundamental moral principle which forbids a man, in Archbishop Magee's words, to " buy a chance."
That does not mean, however, that there are no moral issues involved. It is a familiar principle of moral theology that a course of action, which is not wrong in itself, may none the less be wrong at one time and right at another ; right in moderation and wrong in excess ; wrong for one person and right for another. The circumstances • conditioning the action, that is to say, are among the i4es which determine its moral quality. The case of betting and gambling seems to be closely parallel to that of alcoholic drink. Both are harmless in moderation, harmful in excess. " Betting is not a sin " it has been said, " but may easily become one " ; and no one who has had any experience of pastoral or social work can doubt that betting is to-day more dangerous even than drink to the well-being of society. The effects of exeessi„moreover, are so similar in the two cases—instability of character, weakness of will, dependence on excitement, ruin of homes—that we may expect remedies which have been largely successful in the one case to succeed also in the other. There are others, of course, who hold that it is intrinsically wrong in itself to take alcoholic drink ; and no one to-day has anything but respect for the teetotaller ; but there would also be general agreement, at least in this country, that the great improvement in temperance which has taken place in the last twenty years has been due not so much to the acceptance of teetotalism as a principle as to other causes such as the spread of education, the limitation of hours, &c., which have led to a much greater moderation in drinking. And to this result it should probably be admitted that the moderate drinker has contributed no less than the teetotaller.
I believe that the same attitude will prove most helpful in the matter of betting and gambling. All honour to the total abstainer, but do not let us claim that total abstinence—here any more than in regard to alcohol—is the only virtue. What we want to do is to secure the assent of public opinion to some general principles in the matter which will lead to the most serious evils attaching to the practice being restrained. So far as betting and gambling are concerned, excess (which is the enemy to be tackled) may be of two kinds, both harmful. The first kind lies in-the amount of thought, time, and money which individuals may give to a game which is at once one of avarice and of chance. That is a danger more fitly guarded against by education than by law ; and by education I include, of course, religious education. It may be doubted whether anything but religion is strong enough to discipline the gambling instinct, and train it into the one channel where it is fruitful—the staking of life upon religion being true. As Pascal said, i/ faut parier—i.e., faith involves a great gamble.
It is often said that social conditions have much to do with the growth of betting ; but this is questionable.
At any rate, in New Zealand, where social conditions are perhaps as favourable as any-where in the world, betting is almost universal, and has increased greatly in recent years. . The best prophylactic would seem to lie in an attitude of mind which finds its interest and excitement in the business of living itself.
The second kind of danger is from the civic point of view no less important. It lies in the gigantic size of the prizes, of which the Dublin sweepstakes afford perhaps the best example. That a person who has never been accustomed to handle more than a few pounds, and never been educated to do so, should suddenly become possessed of E30,000 is a patently anti-social occurrence. It advertises before the eyes of the unthinking a wholly false example of the way in which wealth is properly acquired ; it indoctrinates the public with the notion that money is a matter of purely individual gain instead of one of trusteeship ; and it involves great economic waste through the passing of large sums into purely - fortuitous pockets.
The case seems obviously one that could and should be dealt with by legislation ; and even those who are opposed to all betting on principle may be prepared to agree that, where prohibition las in this case) would go far beyond . the general moral sense of the public, sumptuary legislation of a less draltic kind should be given a fair trial.
A particular question arises in regard to the use of sweepstakes and other forms of gambling for purposes of charity. Charity, it has been said, will cover a multitude of sins; but surely hypocrisy is not among them. We do not remember any widespread solicitude for the care of sick people in Dublin before the Dublin sweepstakes came into view. The chance of gain is the only motive which, in point of fact, appeals to people in these cases, and charity is not really in the picture ; and further, the charities thus supposed to be helped would, in fact, suffer seriously if this method of raising funds became widespread. Not only will ordinary subscriptions fall off—and, on the occasion of the second Dublin sweepstake, the Lord Mayor of Dublin said that this had already happened—but the competition between rival charitable agencies in the promotion of sweepstakes will become so severe that the divisible profits of every particular flotation will steadily diminish. There may, I think, be something to be said for allowing the members of a hospital contri- butory scheme to be regarded as constituting a club, whose members—and they alone—would be entitled to take tickets in any sweepstakes organized by that club. Such an arrangement would appear to require little, if any, alteration in the law ; but the hospital authorities would no doubt desire to scrutinize it very carefully before adopting it.
To sum up, then 1. I cannot share the view that all betting and gambling are in principle wrong ; and in any case it is impossible to-day to impose that view, by means of total prohibition, on the whole population.
2. The effects of sweepstakes as organized to-day are none the less seriously anti-social, and the State should intervene by legislation.
3. Such legislation should impose a limit on the size of prizes which may be won, and I suggest a limit of £500. Steps should also be taken to bring all gambling within the compass of the Entertainments Tax.
Previous page
