Morality of Poker

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit.

i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.

also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble.

Originally Posted by bigteif

Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven.

you exactly right. you're also misapplying many things.

it is very true that gravity is wrong and has been replaced by relativity. it is also true that relativity will be replaced by something like superstring, and that will likely be replaced by something else. to use this as a reason to induct what you did in your previous post is false however. just because something that we know has the most truth to it is not categorically true does not mean that it is just as likely as something entirely unrelated to be true. what im getting at is that the more solid theories get, the further from the truth they get. newton gravity is wrong, but its not as far from the truth as say theorizing that celestial telekinetic elephants push us down.

newtons gravity provided much practical value to humans even though it was not the total truth. this can be the case because theories are nothing more than observations. even if we get to as close to the truth as science and human allows, the universe will still not be a function of those theories since those theories are simply observations with limited capacity. the deeper and stronger our theories get the greater the practical value. you know, all the theories that have bought to us computers and the internet are probably incorrect absolutely, but if it wasn't for those theories then we wouldn't be here.

the theory of evolution is a very strong theory. its about as strong as the theory that the speed of light is constant, and that is about as strong a theory (read: fact) as you're gonna get, even though it may be wrong or at least wrong in some ways.

if youre a student of knowledge, then it is foolish to believe in something contrary to evolution. kinda like how the theory of poker is probably not totally true, but its teh best we have, and if it wasn't for that i would be broke and have to work a real job.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory.

I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature.

if richard dawkins said that then he is foolish. first, we dont know enough to know that life cannot spontaneously generate, and second, we know enough to know that life/things likely can and do. the quantum vacuum is an amazing thing.

not all theories are created equal, and many theories should not be rightly labeled as theories, yet they are by their proponents. for example check out Hovind Theory. it is a bunch of hogwash that is as disproven as it gets, yet many still believe it has theoretical basis.

also, dont make the mistake of approaching things with the pseudo-science mindset, which you are unknowingly doing when you say you believe natural selection but not in evolution species. not only is your terminology skewed, but you're picking and choosing what facets of the diamond you consider facets. you're picking and choosing what part of the theory you like and what you dont. natural selection is, afterall, an aspect hypothesized and derived from the theory of evolution. it is intertwined with the theory of evolution. this doesn't mean it cannot be extracted from the theory of evolution, but the problem is that the extraction must be qualified with science behind it. non-evolution beliefs have yet to do this.

this is a very standard creationist thing to do. majorly pseudo-science. they misunderstand terminology and purpose like 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' and develop analyses based in that faulty understanding. its like saying oh i believe in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament

First part I said evolution between species or macro evolution.
Second bolded statement. You say that natural selection is derived from the theory of evolution. How do you know this is true?
I believe evolution is derived from natural selection.

youre right inasmuch as natural selection was one of the first observed phenomena which lead to the theory of evolution. this was however a rudimentary understanding, and it has been advanced from developments in related sciences like genetics and biology.

natural selection is a theorized process of evolution. not the other way around, like evolution is an adjunct to the observations of natural selection or selective adaptation.

Compared to everything else in life, poker is fair enough.

that is easily the best point in the thread

Here's a NLHE Strategy: If people would take poker as seriously as some of the shit in this thread then they would have a shitload of money.

Originally Posted by bigteif

Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven.

Newton didn't get replaced, he got expanded upon. Newton is still relevant.

Science, while malleable isn't quite THAT fluid, as it generally gets refined up as opposed to doing a complete 180 degree turn.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

first off, im pretty sure poker is not a negative sum game, but a zero sum game, and this has to do solely with the game, not the players.

It's negative sum (for the players) because of the rake. Because money is taken out of the game every hand, there has to be more money lost than won. On the other hand, the general economy is like a money added tourney because value is constantly being created, so theoretically, everyone could win.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

the first mistake is that you're attempting to give an objective qualification to value.you cant do that, value is personal.

I agree that value is personal, but it can still be measured in a variety of ways. Profit is one way. If people are willing to pay more for something than it cost to make, then value was created in its production.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

second, the reason you give here

winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education

is not applied across the board. who's to say that entertainment and occasionally education isn't merited? even then, a ton of established professions do exactly that and only that. is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

Now this is the argument you have to make to convince me that playing poker is a moral career choice... that the losers get their money's worth in the form of entertainment and education. I think if you talked to most losers they would not agree.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

lets look at something entirely different. lets look at love, and apply your thinking. lets say you and i are both in love with the same woman. we do our best to win her heart, and i come out on top; you are the loser. was the value and effect of this game we played any different than when we battle for chips/money and one of us wins and one loses?

I also don't think that fighting for a woman's love is a moral career choice.

wufungy = Duece Bigalo? i like how you made yourself the winnar.

zook, not everyone is playing with their rent money. and very seldom will you find the one that is...and know it. therefore, if you wish to continue making your living this way, you need to convince yourself that these players are here for entertainment, or because they arent as good...yet. you cant worry/fault yourself for taking money they are handing over. some shouldnt be here...fine. but, most arent degenerate, addicted gamboolers. you said it yourself in the stats you mentioned regarding how often you see the fish a second time.

bottom line: its not YOUR problem. its theirs, assuming they even have one.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit.

i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.

also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble.

Way to completely miss the point.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

That depends on your point of view.
Just living within the structures of our society is hurting people, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes. Poker for me is less conflicting than writing software for insurance companies. That's really the point I've been trying to make. My understanding is that if we simply live not to hurt anyone, what we do is inherently pointless.

Originally Posted by zook

Now this is the argument you have to make to convince me that playing poker is a moral career choice... that the losers get their money's worth in the form of entertainment and education. I think if you talked to most losers they would not agree.

im not sure that whether or not the losers agree is relevant because their minds change. some losers, those who keep coming back and play the game for fun (which is what poker was created for in the first place i bet), cant be anything other than satisfied. some will say they're not, but thats because they feel like they should be winners. those who are losers yet are trying to be winners are akin to anybody in any job who is trying to be successful yet isn't. great examples of that are those who create and operates businesses. are competing businesses that are better/luckier immoral?

poker is weird. everybody thinks they're tops. if i truly think i can beat Fedor Emelianenko's ass and i put a bunch of money on the line is it immoral for him to take me up on it even if he is supremely confident he could put me in the hospital? how is poker different than this?

when i watched Saving Private Ryan i felt like a got more than my value's worth; when i watched Indiana Jones i felt like i got ripped off. how is Spielberg here any different than you or i when we play vs somebody who wins some and lose some, we may have an edge, we may not, we may have a huge edge but they may run up a ton and vanish with our money.

we're simply working with odds. it is technically possible for a fish to run amazing for a hundred million hands, we're just banking on the odds that this is astronomically unlikely. we work with odds in every thing we do whether or not we know it. i dont challenge Emelianenko because i know how bad my odds are, but if i choose to ignore those odds or believe they dont matter then i am the one at fault, and he would be a fool to not take me up on it.

we're all dealing with intelligent, capable people here. if we were playing a bunch of mentally handicapped people who simply are incapable of making intelligent and adult decisions then things may be different. if a random enthusiast mortgages his house then sits with Antonius, he is a fool, and this isn't Antonius' problem. if it wasn't for foolish or sub-optimal decisions then nobody would ever get anywhere.

I also don't think that fighting for a woman's love is a moral career choice.

im not sure if youre joking at me when you say 'career choice' since, well, thats not even a career.

anyways, if you believe that fighting for a woman's love is immoral then i dont see how you can think just about any thing isn't immoral.

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit.

i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.

also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble.

Way to completely miss the point.

im pretty sure i ddint miss the point, but like i said i was confused by your post anyways. but i would say that my point was missed since my point was to illustrate the folly in calling poker gambling and just about anything else not.

if poker truly was gambling (as the word is understood colloquially) then why are so many of us professionals? on the flip side, very few realize that all other businesses and jobs have an element of gambling to them. name me one career choice that doesn't have a gambling element.

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

That depends on your point of view.
Just living within the structures of our society is hurting people, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes. Poker for me is less conflicting than writing software for insurance companies. That's really the point I've been trying to make. My understanding is that if we simply live not to hurt anyone, what we do is inherently pointless.

my point is that its not less conflicting, as well as it doesn't even matter if its more conflicting. conflict =/ bad

i mean this objectively. obv you can subjectively feel it is, and thats fine

wufwugy: I appreciate the long response. But we're still not exactly on the same page. Let me try to put my position succinctly... I think that poker may not be a moral profession because it involves taking money from people while providing little or nothing of value in return. There are other factors that contribute (poker being a negative sum game, gambling being addictive) but that's the main point. As you've pointed out, people in other professions often profit without providing adequate value to consumers (e.g. Spielberg) and I would have moral issues if I were one of them as well.

re: fighting for a woman's love, I was joking. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.

i think youre looking at it the wrong way. yes, taking somebody's money without providing anything in return is pretty much like you say, but thats not poker. that may be how you feel you are, and thats correct. i personally am in this exclusively for the money, so according to the point of view that my actions exclusively provide substance, i may be somewhat immoral.

the problem is tho that the game itself is not immoral AND a requisite for the game to be the game is the players trying to outsmart and take the other players' money.

you are simply playing the game, and this game has neutral morality at worst. it seems to me that you're thinking in the subjective terms and you feel that if you are not personally providing value directly then you are immoral, but i am looking at it objectively and saying that the value you provide is not direct and it doesn't need to be.

however, like i said before, you can personally feel you're being immoral, but that cannot be applied to the game objectively. so even tho poker may be immoral as a profession to you, this does not equal it being immoral as a profession for all. so then its just a personal issue, which may be what you're getting at this entire time.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit.

i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.

also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble.

Way to completely miss the point.

im pretty sure i ddint miss the point, but like i said i was confused by your post anyways. but i would say that my point was missed since my point was to illustrate the folly in calling poker gambling and just about anything else not.

if poker truly was gambling (as the word is understood colloquially) then why are so many of us professionals? on the flip side, very few realize that all other businesses and jobs have an element of gambling to them. name me one career choice that doesn't have a gambling element.

The morality question's got nothing to do with gambling in general. What I meant by 'gambling for a living' was specifically gambling against other people who you know are not as good as you.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

That depends on your point of view.
Just living within the structures of our society is hurting people, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes. Poker for me is less conflicting than writing software for insurance companies. That's really the point I've been trying to make. My understanding is that if we simply live not to hurt anyone, what we do is inherently pointless.

my point is that its not less conflicting, as well as it doesn't even matter if its more conflicting. conflict =/ bad

i mean this objectively. obv you can subjectively feel it is, and thats fine

There's no content there. I state my point of view and you repeat it back and tell me it's ok?

If we try to take this as a binary thing, either poker is moral or amoral, then we can easily come to the conclusion that it's amoral because of the lack of an intrinsic positive effect on society. For me, the choices are between a bunch of negatives. Poker is less negative than, in this case, working for an insurance company.

Taken as part of a life as a whole, poker can be a positive thing. Is Barry Greenstein having a positive effect on the world? Probably. Lee Watkinson? Probably. Negreanu? I don't know. Tilly? Probably not. Poker alone has a negative effect. May I suggest that it requires a balance to become positive (think life shania)?

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by wufwugy

is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

That depends on your point of view.
Just living within the structures of our society is hurting people, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes. Poker for me is less conflicting than writing software for insurance companies. That's really the point I've been trying to make. My understanding is that if we simply live not to hurt anyone, what we do is inherently pointless.

my point is that its not less conflicting, as well as it doesn't even matter if its more conflicting. conflict =/ bad

i mean this objectively. obv you can subjectively feel it is, and thats fine

There's no content there. I state my point of view and you repeat it back and tell me it's ok?

If we try to take this as a binary thing, either poker is moral or amoral, then we can easily come to the conclusion that it's amoral because of the lack of an intrinsic positive effect on society. For me, the choices are between a bunch of negatives. Poker is less negative than, in this case, working for an insurance company.

Taken as part of a life as a whole, poker can be a positive thing. Is Barry Greenstein having a positive effect on the world? Probably. Lee Watkinson? Probably. Negreanu? I don't know. Tilly? Probably not. Poker alone has a negative effect. May I suggest that it requires a balance to become positive (think life shania)?

There's something immoral about working for an insurance company??? That's news to me.

a friend of mine just mentioned, in a discussion over the same subject, that we should never underestimate the "small contributions" we make.

zook may think he provides little to society online, and he may be right, but tipping in B&Ms DOES help people pay their bills. you never know the impact of your little dollar.

however, your little dollar tip is just as likely to end up in the casino next door after your dealer gets off work...lol.

Originally Posted by Chopper

a friend of mine just mentioned, in a discussion over the same subject, that we should never underestimate the "small contributions" we make.

zook may think he provides little to society online, and he may be right, but tipping in B&Ms DOES help people pay their bills. you never know the impact of your little dollar.

however, your little dollar tip is just as likely to end up in the casino next door after your dealer gets off work...lol.

i really like this point. i personally find 'contributing to society' a load of crap since you have to look at it very narrowly to think you're not contributing, plus i dont even think it matters. seriously, it has not been determined to actually matter whether or not we're moral and good and all that jazz. it does, however, have very solid application, but i believe we take it way too far, and try to be good with all things when we both cant and shouldn't.

it could very well be that i contribute to pokerstars' wallet and pokerstars will use this money to further the online legalization of online poker. this a huge contribution to humanity. it could be that by busting that fish he may feel he needs to get better and learns and practices and he becomes the best and biggest winner in the game and donates half his money to starving children.

of course the opposite of those could happen, but thats life.

an appropo parable

There once was a Taoist farmer. One day the Taoist farmer’s only horse broke out of the corral and ran away. The farmer’s neighbors, all hearing of the horse running away, came to the Taoist farmer's house to view the corral. As they stood there, the neighbors all said, "Oh what bad luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

About a week later, the horse returned, bringing with it a whole herd of wild horses, which the Taoist farmer and his son quickly corralled. The neighbors, hearing of the corralling of the horses, came to see for themselves. As they stood there looking at the corral filled with horses, the neighbors said, "Oh what good luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

A couple of weeks later, the Taoist farmer's son's leg was badly broken when he was thrown from a horse he was trying to break. A few days later the broken leg became infected and the son became delirious with fever. The neighbors, all hearing of the incident, came to see the son. As they stood there, the neighbors said, "Oh what bad luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

At that same time in China, there was a war going on between two rival warlords. The warlord of the Taoist farmer's village was involved in this war. In need of more soldiers, he sent one of his captains to the village to conscript young men to fight in the war. When the captain came to take the Taoist farmer's son he found a young man with a broken leg who was delirious with fever. Knowing there was no way the son could fight, the captain left him there. A few days later, the son's fever broke. The neighbors, hearing of the son's not being taken to fight in the war and of his return to good health, all came to see him. As they stood there, each one said, "Oh what good luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by Chopper

a friend of mine just mentioned, in a discussion over the same subject, that we should never underestimate the "small contributions" we make.

zook may think he provides little to society online, and he may be right, but tipping in B&Ms DOES help people pay their bills. you never know the impact of your little dollar.

however, your little dollar tip is just as likely to end up in the casino next door after your dealer gets off work...lol.

i really like this point. i personally find 'contributing to society' a load of crap since you have to look at it very narrowly to think you're not contributing, plus i dont even think it matters. seriously, it has not been determined to actually matter whether or not we're moral and good and all that jazz. it does, however, have very solid application, but i believe we take it way too far, and try to be good with all things when we both cant and shouldn't.

it could very well be that i contribute to pokerstars' wallet and pokerstars will use this money to further the online legalization of online poker. this a huge contribution to humanity. it could be that by busting that fish he may feel he needs to get better and learns and practices and he becomes the best and biggest winner in the game and donates half his money to starving children.

of course the opposite of those could happen, but thats life.

an appropo parable

There once was a Taoist farmer. One day the Taoist farmer’s only horse broke out of the corral and ran away. The farmer’s neighbors, all hearing of the horse running away, came to the Taoist farmer's house to view the corral. As they stood there, the neighbors all said, "Oh what bad luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

About a week later, the horse returned, bringing with it a whole herd of wild horses, which the Taoist farmer and his son quickly corralled. The neighbors, hearing of the corralling of the horses, came to see for themselves. As they stood there looking at the corral filled with horses, the neighbors said, "Oh what good luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

A couple of weeks later, the Taoist farmer's son's leg was badly broken when he was thrown from a horse he was trying to break. A few days later the broken leg became infected and the son became delirious with fever. The neighbors, all hearing of the incident, came to see the son. As they stood there, the neighbors said, "Oh what bad luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

At that same time in China, there was a war going on between two rival warlords. The warlord of the Taoist farmer's village was involved in this war. In need of more soldiers, he sent one of his captains to the village to conscript young men to fight in the war. When the captain came to take the Taoist farmer's son he found a young man with a broken leg who was delirious with fever. Knowing there was no way the son could fight, the captain left him there. A few days later, the son's fever broke. The neighbors, hearing of the son's not being taken to fight in the war and of his return to good health, all came to see him. As they stood there, each one said, "Oh what good luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."

Do you have any stance on morality at all? After reading every post you've made in this thread, I still can't figure out why you've spent so much time in this discussion. It seems to me that you're saying that it doesn't matter what we do and anything could happen, so lets not worry about whether what we do is moral or not.

You see, to some of us, it actually does matter. That's why we're discussing it. Your stance seems to be that morality is unimportant.

there is no objective morality, yet its philosophical basis tends to ignore this.

i do believe there is tremendous value in right/wrong conduct. when applied practically it has insurmountable effects on society. however, this is entirely relative.

we have two options: 1) there is a true right and wrong and, as the definitions suggest, right is right and wrong is wrong, or 2) there is no clear right and wrong because both are necessary and relative to each other and those affected. i believe the former is what our society believes while the latter is correct

is murder wrong? yes? really? you cant think of one example in which murder isn't wrong? how bout in self-defense? oh thats not murder? who gets to decide thats not murder when the outcome is exactly the same as something else categorized as murder? because of what brought it about? well this is simply opinion that what brought about the self-defense killing is jusitification, why cannot my opinion that a gf or mine cheating on me be justification for her murder? why is it murder for Michael Corleone to kill people to further his family but not for the US president to kill people to further his nation?

the role of morality is in social construct. a bunch of people getting together agreeing on ways to be so they can live in harmony and progression. this does not make it an objective right. once the gold changes hands the rules change, and this is because the rules are social and cultural constructs founded in relativity. it just so happens that a lot of rules stay real close to how they were before, and people mistakenly believe this means they are inherently correct. this is the same logic creationists unwittingly use that sees that human history is all we know therefore life began with human history.

so yes i believe morality has great purpose when applied practically, but when applied abstractly and enigmatically, like it is in this thread, i believe it is productive intentions misled.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

there is no objective morality ... i believe morality has great purpose when applied practically, but when applied abstractly and enigmatically, like it is in this thread, i believe it is productive intentions misled.

Well, I'd rather believe that there is a true right and wrong, if only to allow myself the idea that there is actually meaning to existence. I don't claim to know exactly what is right and wrong, and I'm not so pompous as to try to designate rules to it.

Of course there are exceptions to rules like murder=bad! Can you explain why we all tend to agree that rape is a bad thing while, say, picking up trash on a beach is a good thing? We all have a moral compass. Sure, it's relative, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I understand your point, but for those of us that disagree, this thread was very meaningful and interesting.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i do believe there is tremendous value in right/wrong conduct. when applied practically it has insurmountable effects on society.

wtf?

Originally Posted by dev

Well, I'd rather believe that there is a true right and wrong, if only to allow myself the idea that there is actually meaning to existence. I don't claim to know exactly what is right and wrong, and I'm not so pompous as to try to designate rules to it.

Of course there are exceptions to rules like murder=bad! Can you explain why we all tend to agree that rape is a bad thing while, say, picking up trash on a beach is a good thing? We all have a moral compass. Sure, it's relative, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I understand your point, but for those of us that disagree, this thread was very meaningful and interesting.

assuming that human morality is an effect of the meaning of the universe is a ginormous leap of logic on par with that found in religion. besides, the real 'meaning to life' is happiness, as far as the purpose behind that question is. happiness is a far better meaning than propriety.

we have a moral compass because we are genetically disposed to due to being the offspring of people who agreed on the same stuff, for the most part, in order to operate a flourishing society. also how we are raised and our society affects this but to a lesser degree.

rape, and probably torture, are perhaps the most 'wrong' things in the human mind, but even those have their place, even if beyond rare. for example, even though its ludicrously extreme its still applicable, if me and some chick are the last humans alive due to some catastrophe or whatever and we gotta repopulate the earth but she doesn't wanna have anything to do with me then i gotta rape her to repopulate the earth. im pretty sure you cant say in that case rape is wrong. stupid example but it works.

when you look at all the mega immoral things in our society, notice how without those things being 'wrong' and punished our society would be in havoc. this is not a coincidence. if rape and murder and theft were not punished then things would be up in flames, but this doesn't make them inherently wrong.

what if the very first female mammal didn't wanna bang the very first male mammal, which is actually kinda likely, where would we be if the male mammal didn't force himself upon her?

animals do some pretty crazy shit as far as morality goes, and there is absolutely nothing different from humans and other animals with regards to 'moral objectivity'.

wtf?

the effect is big

Wufwugy/dev : Are you a god? you two made this thread what it is.

if me and some chick are the last humans alive due to some catastrophe or whatever and we gotta repopulate the earth but she doesn't wanna have anything to do with me then i gotta rape her

I LOL

Originally Posted by wufwugy

there is no objective morality, yet its philosophical basis tends to ignore this.

i do believe there is tremendous value in right/wrong conduct. when applied practically it has insurmountable effects on society.

yesthis.

Originally Posted by dev

You see, to some of us, it actually does matter. That's why we're discussing it. Your stance seems to be that morality is unimportant.

Maybe.













Everything/All is relative, though.

I'd like to say I read the whole thread... but that would be a lie, and the type of lie that's immoral. Not to be confused with the "No your @ss doesn't look fat in those jeans" lie that isn't immoral. Except for those people who think it is.

Point is, since morality is a wholly human construct, it can (and is...) pretty much what anyone thinks it is. We then as cultures set the common boundaries, punish those who step over them, etc. It's also a constantly changing playing field (crusades, inquisitions or witch hunts anyone?) and is completely culturally dependant (no booze for you sunni's or devout baptists and don't offend the anti-capitalist morality of your local neighborhood maoist...)

So now that's out of the way...

Poker is just one of a billion variants of "I'll trade finite resources for others" -- the only difference being that one of those resources, the money resource, may exchange in a positive or negative flow. And that appears to be part of the root of the morality question.

Problem is that there's more than one resource exchanged, and all at the absolute free will of the participants. I decide to risk $100 to play poker for an hour. I have given up an hour of my time (a finite resource with a real opportunity cost) and potentially $100. But I may end up at the end of the hour with $200... and even if I end up with 0, it's absolutely no different than my decision to order a $100 meal and proceed to eat every last bite of it, only to wish I'd stayed home for the fish sticks instead...

Maybe I didn't want to end up with $0? Maybe I'd hoped to end up with $200? Aside from "who gives a sh!t", this doesn't make it a moral problem, let alone assign immoral behavior to the person who ended up with your $100 in trade for their potential financial risk and similar real time investment. I really wish that f-in Cuba Gooding Jr. movie hadn't been such a POS on pay-per-view, but does that mean the cable company's immoral for taking my $4 in an obvious exploitation of my ability to make good entertainment decisions?

Looked at another way... Assume I have $1 million dollars. I decide my goal in life is to learn to play poker well, and the best way to do that is to play against people who can challenge me with thoughtful play. I sit down to play $10NL and proceed to play 40 hours of poker against you, a total donkfish f-cktard.

Here's the catch. I have terminal cancer and less than 3 weeks to live. I can lose very hand I play and give you all the money introduced to that session and it doesn't mean sh!t 'cause the amount is irrelevant. However, you just wasted 1/3 of my most precious asset - my remaining life expectancy - by pissing away my opportunity to learn (the reason I engaged in the act of playing poker with you in the first place) because you suck. Immorality at work? Nope... just another series of choices that didn't quite work out as planned.....

Author is a losing poker player.

very nice post sarbox

I'm not sure why the moral relativists (wufwugy and sarbox) are dominating this thread. It's unsurprising that you have no moral problem with playing poker for a living.

Originally Posted by zook

I'm not sure why the moral relativists (wufwugy and sarbox) are dominating this thread. It's unsurprising that you have no moral problem with playing poker for a living.

I dominate with one post! Wish my K9o fared so well....

Originally Posted by sarbox68

I dominate with one post!

It WAS a long post.

(Ok, I was talking about wufwugy.)

i cant help but dominate. its in my blood

seriously, what zook said.

Originally Posted by dev

seriously, what zook said.

I think zook called me long-winded....

"The ultimate expression of humanity is the privilege and power to define morality."
- me, circa 1997 after two 40s and a monster spleef

well i play micro stakes so to me if someone loseses 5 bucks to me over a session i don't feel bad at all nor do i expect them to feel bad for me. as far as compulsive idiots that gamble away their famlies food money well they are a tiny percentage of gamblers and i feel for them but i doubt they play 2 nl

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Author is a losing poker player.

nail on the head

I am surprised to find such strong opposition to poker here in this forum. It makes no sense to me.

It's unfair, you have an advantage. (And still, this is a big part of this forum, to become a better player, to create a bigger advantage.)

If you feel you don't give anything back, begin donating to charity. You will most likely do more good that way.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can take the high moral ground just because you don't play for a living. You use your skill to win money from people just like the pros. If you have a big problem with that I think it's high time that you quit.

There is a immoral side to poker, but that goes for a lot of things in life.

Originally Posted by Seabass

It's unfair, you have an advantage.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can take the high moral ground just because you don't play for a living. You use your skill to win money from people just like the pros.

If making money because of a competitive advantage is immoral, then every form of business, professional sports, or anything else where resources are distributed according to inherent or acquired ability is immoral. I guess which fundamentally means "that's life"...

I'm amazed that people who don't even understand or respect the idea of morality are involved in this thread.

The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.

Originally Posted by d0zer

The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.

A-men.

Lol @ Social Darwinism being pulled in.

Charles Darwin's Natural selection: certain favorable genes become more frequent in a population over time. Typically, genes that make individuals more suited for the environment. (such as those of the one-toed sloth).

Social Darwism (not from Darwin): The biggest, baddest, meanest mother-fuckers around deserve success because they are the meanest, baddest mother-fuckers around.

See how the second one has a moral tone to it? The theory of evolution has no place in this argument. Just because we may or may not be wired a certain way / have natural survival instincts doesn't mean it's "right" to exercise them. In fact I'd argue that most moral systems belief the opposite.

(e.g. though I might obtain immense pleasure from stabbing a random on the street, ("surival of the fittest, nukka!"), many would deem my actions to me antisocial / immoral.

As for my opinion on poker, the jury's still out. It's one thing to sit down with other players, everyone knowing full well that a game of risk and deception is being played. It's another when you talk / act like you suck at poker away from the table, try to lure known fish to games in order to bleed them etc. But hey marketers and salesmen are just as bad!

I guess what I'm saying is that, poker is not the noblest profession (contribution to society: selling false hope to others) but it's no better or worse than most of today's jobs.

This is a late response but I LOL'ed.

Originally Posted by bigteif

I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature.

You don't believe in evolution between species but you do believe in natural selection? Is that a joke?

In case you really don't understand, natural selection selects for whatever is best adapted to its current environment. A huge gigantic enormously important aspect of its current environment is THE OTHER SPECIES NEARBY. So every species selects within itself according to other species in the region, who then change to adapt to the new situation, and so on forever. Duh!

I agree with most of what Wufwugy says, he's apparently a smart guy.

Morality IMO is just a balancing act between what works best for society as a whole and what works best for each individual. One thing a lot of people forget is that what is good for the whole is often best for the individual in the long run.
EG - stabbing a guy in the street to take the $100 in his wallet is short term good for me and probably bad as a whole. I run the risk of being caught or developing a bad reputation, and that's just if someone else catches wind of it. Even if they don't, people are VERY perceptive and if I'm the type of person who will take massive advantage of other people for even slight selfish gain, other people will pick up on that and of course this is bad for me.

OTOH, if I see a guy being attacked in the street and I help him, this is very bad for me at first as I run the risk of being injured/killed. But in the long run I reap benefits for the opposite reasons of my first example.

There's a long-winded chat on morality.

As far as poker goes, I think it's fine, after all we're all openly competing with each other and to the best men go the spoils. The only qualm I have is that what I do is of little/no immediate value to society (and therefore little/no long term value to MYSELF)... but I can make a lot of money relatively quickly playing poker, and from there I can create a lot of value for myself and others. Score!

"Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life."

That's an Einstein quote I particularly like. See, there really is no objective good or evil, the way I see it. But maybe morality can make us happier by giving us an ideal to strive for.

Poker would be immoral if the people we were taking money off did not want to be playing, if we were forcing them to play against us knowing that we had an advantage. This is not the case.

Is is immoral to bet on sports etc.? When we win we are taking money away from the betting company. But the whole point of the company is that it knowingly puts itself in that position of risk - so why feel immoral when you win? Same applies to poker IMO. Taking money in situations in which the other party knowingly "risks" their own cash is surely fine, as they themselves have decided to "gamble".

Peoples.... if we was talking digging ditches or cleaning out Andy Gumps or some other Grapes of Wrath sh!t here on a "I know I said I'd pay you, but maybe I won't" basis, that's one thing.

But it's f$*@ing poker! It's a game... And last time I checked, none of my Full Tilt villains was duct taped to they chairs trading CIBs for water rations!!

We play 'cause it's fun. If we win money, that's even funner. If we hated poker, we could spend that time selling slushies at 7-11, walking people's dogs for minimum wage or any other number of ways to spend our time.

If you can't afford to play, you shouldn't be playing anyway -- regardless of whether you suck or not, 'cause lets not forget variance hits everyone. If you play, and you suck, and you lose money -- f-ck it, hopefully you had some fun into the bargain. I pay $60 for a round of golf or $30 for a night of bowling and I'm a f-in freak show at both. Does that make the greens keeper or the man de-smelling the shoes immoral?? F--k no.

Yes, there are people with gambling problems. So call me immoral when I drag my home made poker table and box of Costco chips to the next Gamblers Anonymous meeting trying to spot games... Until then.....

Now if I could find a way to swap my golf and bowling scores, then I might actually enjoy the b!tch...

This thread reminds me of an animation short I saw once where a man in a druid cloak and walking stick goes to a stone idol and asks what is the meaning of my life. The idol comes to life... and eats the man.

Poker, with all its angles (learning the skill, luck, trying to gain an edge, the rake) is a microcosm of the real world (getting an education, job opportunites and business cycles, use of technology for efficiency, taxes). If poker is immoral, then the real world is immoral. Also, making a "moral" judgment is a metaethical decision that something is displaying characteristics of being either "good", "bad" or a mixture of both. It also implies a judge exists to make the decision. Is there anyone other than a being with omnicient powers (i.e. god) that is really qualified to make this metaethical judgment?

If someone sits at a poker table and plays, I am going to play by the rules with the options available to me to take their money and they will do the same regardless of our race, color, gender, nationality, criminal record, beliefs, family heritage, the identity of our parents, who we "know", where we went to school or any other factor other than the rules and the plays we make. In this context and setting aside morality, poker is actually more "fair", "pure" and is more of an "equal playing field" than the real world.

STONEIDOLEATINGMANLOLAMENTS!

This topic has surprised me. I don't think that playing poker however you do it, for entertainment or for a living, is immoral. I kinda liked Zooks point about wanting to give something back, ie, producing something of inherint value for society, but I don't think being a professional poker player and being a productive member of society are mutually exclusive.

I guess my take on it is that the people you are playing are all playing by the same rules. Regardless of their skill they have decided to sit down and wager money on a game of skill and chance. To refuse to let adults make their own decisions about how they want to spend their time, to me sounds immoral.

The only time I feel bad about playing poker is when I have taken time away from my family, and that is my fault, not pokers.

i think the point is kinda moot. there is no way to tell if they are a gambling addict using their babies food money at the table. if they said they were, you still cant be sure.

as a hypothetical if i did for a fact know that they were as described above, id just move table. if every table was full of these people, then hell, id just play. I'm not saying its morally defensible though (im not sure either way if it is or not), just that i'd do it.
but as it is, its not something i consider or think that i ever will consider.

I missed this discussion the first time around, so bump, in case others missed it too. No I'm not going to offer my stance on the subject, apart from saying that if I had the ability to make my living solely from poker income, I probably wouldn't be able to do so without feeling empty and unfulfilled inside.

"we all have to decide how much sin we can live with"
- Nucky Thompson

epic bump eug. very interesting read. oh, and

Originally Posted by d0zer

The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.

+1

Originally Posted by rpm

@ the bolded part, i agree to an extent. the argument "if i don't do it somebody else will" is definitely a weak one. in fact, i'll say morally void. BUT, sitting at a card table with someone who has a gambling problem isn't "taking their money". winning a pot off them isn't even "taking their money". you're wagering your money against theirs and a huge % of the time they will have at least some equity in the pots you win off them. anyway, i'm derailing somebody's thread. this issue has been discussed on this forum before. i'll see if i can dig up the thread and link it in case you're interested.

edit: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...er-157430.html

Assuming you don't mind continuing and I'm not going to get moaned at for bumping the thread.

I disagree with you. Poker is a game of skill, if you are a better poker player than me and we play enough hands you will always win. Therefore you are taking my money.

Now, let's say I think I'm a better poker player than you but in reality you are better. We play lots of poker together within a bankroll we can both afford and I lose. If I am in a sane mind I would realise at a certain point you are better than me and I would stop playing you if my only intention was to win. Therefore morally that's perfectly fine.

If however I had a gambling addiction so would keep on going to a point that I could not afford then it isn't ok. Your benefiting from my need to gamble which is no longer a choice on my part imo. This I don't think is morally acceptable.

I don't however think that it is possible to be able to distinguish between the two scenarios when you don't know me, which I assume a lot of the time is the case.

Which imo means that I would never want to try and play poker for pure profit reasons in which case I'd actively seek out weak players. However poker as a game interests me, I'd like to get very good at it as it interests me from a theoretical point of view and I'm a competitive person.

In other words I would love to prove I was better than you at poker by beating you, however to me, you being able to afford a roof over your head is much more important than my want to prove I'm better than you. Even though I don't actually care about you. Which is where my point comes from about caring less if I was taking money off someone young and single (still would hate to cripple them financially) than someone who has people dependent on them.

Saying all this, I'm still young and I'm assuming I'll be able to find a decent paying job that I don't absolutely hate doing. Meaning that maybe my opinion will change if I ever am in this situation and actually good at poker. Although I'd like to think it won't.

hmm i tend to see it more as a personal choice kind of thing. i suffer the consequences of my own addictions and i accept that. if this guy sits at the table, he's fair game imo. i understand it's a terrible choice for him to sit at the table (and that's why i said that away from the tables i would certainly attempt to discourage a degenerate who doesn't have the financial means to support their degeneracy from sitting). but once that choice is made, he's in the card game.

you may argue that he has no choice in whether or not he sits, which is a point i'd disagree with. certainly, beyond doubt, it is far harder for him to choose not to sit than most. but i don't really accept the idea that addicts have no freewill or choice whatsoever, otherwise there would never have been such thing as a reformed gambling addict/junkie/alcoholic etc etc

I don't disagree with the fact that once he is in the card game he is there. If I'm playing poker I'm going to attempt to play my A game regardless of the state of the people who are sat down. Away from the table though I'm aware that this situation can arise, hence why I wouldn't feel comfortable playing for a living.

And when I say it's not his choice, obviously it is a choice he is making, but it's a choice being made whilst not really in a sane mind. At a very base level it's taking advantage of someone with a mental illness.

Obviously it's you suffering from your own addictions and there will always be people who take advantage of your faults as a person throughout your life, I'm just saying I don't want to be one of those people. In fact I distance myself away from those people as much as possible.

And like I've said that isn't why I want to play poker.