Nov 14, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023Liked by Dougald Lamont
I find it interesting that there's not a clear consensus that lotteries are morally objectionable, even though they clearly do concentrate wealth. (Sometimes they are also used to raise money.)
Lottery winners are envied rather than blamed for taking money they don't deserve. After all, all they did is buy a lottery ticket, which is understandable. If anything, the system is to blame.
There's a saying that a Canadian statistician coined. Even though there will be lottery winner every week, the odds are it will never be you.
Lotteries (and gambling) certainly have downsides, including compulsive behaviour and addictions.
There have always been other ways to select how to allocate resources . The market is one, the lottery is another, the committee is yet another. They all have their pluses and minuses.
The thing about the lottery, is that it is a process where everyone is going in knowing the rules, and to some extent knowing the odds.
Is that it does not discriminate in any way. It is "fair" in the sense that everyone gets the same shot, but it offers people no sense of control.
The question of "deserving" is a moral judgment - but lottery players took a risk by playing - the actual loss of money, had they lost, and it could be argued that if the draw was pure chance (as lotteries should be) the whole point is that it doesn't matter whether someone is deserving or not.
Yes, that's the moral framework of a lottery: everyone gets a fair chance, and that's what's important. Never mind that the results are unfair. So if you win, you can rightfully keep your winnings.
But why aren't random outcomes bad in the case of a lottery, when they're bad in so many other situations? Life is naturally unfair; all sorts of terrible accidents can happen to people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems like we should work together to reduce or even reverse unfair random results, and as a matter of fact, there are well-established systems designed to do this in certain cases, like insurance and the courts.
So I find a little odd how easily we will go along with the moral framework of a lottery, rather than questioning its purpose. Apparently, a desire for just outcomes doesn't always drive moral intuition? There's an inconsistency, but it's not one we normally notice.
I find it interesting that there's not a clear consensus that lotteries are morally objectionable, even though they clearly do concentrate wealth. (Sometimes they are also used to raise money.)
Lottery winners are envied rather than blamed for taking money they don't deserve. After all, all they did is buy a lottery ticket, which is understandable. If anything, the system is to blame.
But most people don't blame the system either.
There's a saying that a Canadian statistician coined. Even though there will be lottery winner every week, the odds are it will never be you.
Lotteries (and gambling) certainly have downsides, including compulsive behaviour and addictions.
There have always been other ways to select how to allocate resources . The market is one, the lottery is another, the committee is yet another. They all have their pluses and minuses.
The thing about the lottery, is that it is a process where everyone is going in knowing the rules, and to some extent knowing the odds.
Is that it does not discriminate in any way. It is "fair" in the sense that everyone gets the same shot, but it offers people no sense of control.
The question of "deserving" is a moral judgment - but lottery players took a risk by playing - the actual loss of money, had they lost, and it could be argued that if the draw was pure chance (as lotteries should be) the whole point is that it doesn't matter whether someone is deserving or not.
Yes, that's the moral framework of a lottery: everyone gets a fair chance, and that's what's important. Never mind that the results are unfair. So if you win, you can rightfully keep your winnings.
But why aren't random outcomes bad in the case of a lottery, when they're bad in so many other situations? Life is naturally unfair; all sorts of terrible accidents can happen to people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems like we should work together to reduce or even reverse unfair random results, and as a matter of fact, there are well-established systems designed to do this in certain cases, like insurance and the courts.
So I find a little odd how easily we will go along with the moral framework of a lottery, rather than questioning its purpose. Apparently, a desire for just outcomes doesn't always drive moral intuition? There's an inconsistency, but it's not one we normally notice.