by Judy Joyce

Created on: September 10, 2008

Adding Money for Schools Does Not Justify Gambling

The proposition that money for schools would justify gambling is acceptable to those who believe that an appropriate standard for ethical decision making about an issue is that the end justifies the means. In such a case, it is necessary to assume that money for schools is a good thing and that gambling is bad or at least not so good as to be desirable as an on-going state. Therefore, to achieve the good of money for the schools any means to achieve that end are acceptable. This would include gambling.

However, there are several ethical standards that would challenge such a belief. Those ethical standards are part of my Lesson Plan when I teach Ethics to Professionals. The standards include these five approaches: Utilitarian; Rights; Justice: Common Good; and Justice.

The Utilitarain approach emphasizes that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm. Another way to say this is this approach seeks to achieve the greatest balance of good over harm. This method deals with consequences. An example of the Utilitarian approach might be the war in Iraq. Putting an end to terrorist harm as the stated goal would allow for the destruction of one country for the good of all the others. If more money for schools would be acceptable as a good even though the harm might be to addict the poor to expending their last resources in the hopes of becoming rich, the balance might be an agreeable one for many.

The Rights Approach would focus on action that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. It starts with the belief that humans have dignity and so should be treated as ends and not merely means to ends. An important element of exercising this right is to be told the truth so as not to be injured before making a choice. With this approach, before gambling could be allowed, the gaming commission would have to reveal just how much money was involved, how much money the schools would get, how much influence over government decisions gaming odds would create etc. In that case, revealing that only a small percentage of revenues would ever get to the schools and that teahers salaries would not be affected, the rights approach might well put a lid on money for schools being used to justify gambling.

The Justice approach exemplifies decision making processes that rely on all human beings being treated equally. Or where unequally, then fairly. Were gambling to be fair, more winners would likely to emerge. So the odds against winning create the understanding that the Rights approach would reject this gaming idea.

The Common Good approach is just what it implies. Whatever action is taken should contribute to the good of community life. If under the Justice approach,gaming is unfair, it is unlikely we could then propose that gambling,even for school money is an acceptable idea.

The Virtue approach is one that contains the standard for conduct should be consistent with certain virtues enabling us to act according to our highest potential of our character. In other words, one might ask what kind of person would I become if I were to gamble because money was added to the schools. The simplest answer, though others can be imagined, is that one would become a gambler or at least potentially be one. In that one would not be acting their best, adding money for schools would not convince him that gambling was how best to do that.

In that of all the five ethical approaches to decision making seem to call gambling into question as a way to make money for the schools with the exception of the Ends Justifies the Means approach. For this reason, I too, do not endorse the idea.

Learn more about this author, Judy Joyce.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.