INTERESTING DEBATE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4850, 8 July 1925, Page 1

INTERESTING DEBATE.

IS GAMBLING IMMORAL ?

AFFIRMATIVE IN THE MAJORITY.

In connection with a rally of members of the South Auckland Methodist’ Bible Union, held in Paeroa during the week-end, an : interesting debate took place in the Centenary Hall on Saturday evening, the subject being; “Is gambling essentially immoral?’’; The affirmative was taken by Misses; E. Burnett, G. Aitkinson, and P. C; Allen, members of the Hamilton sub-; union. The negative was ably handled by Messrs R. Il Fursderi, R. Day, and; J. E. Bigelow, M.A., of Paeroa. Mrs Williams, president of the South Auckland Union, occupied the chair,; and the Rev. A, M. Costain acted as! umpire. 5 ;

In opening for the affirmative Missj Burnett explained .that gambling was; the staking of money, or worth, on chance. Essentially, taken! literally, meant its essence, in an im-i portant degree, or primarily ; while! immoral was taken to mean contrary! tb ethics, or regardless of social; rights and obligations. To sum the; statement up, gambling was, in its essence, contrary to ethics. • To receive money without giving an adequate return, eitherin goods or labour, was immoral. People who took all and gave nothing ,were looked on as selfish and grabbing. Gambling was a system of getting something for nothing, or for very little, and al--though not always successful in getting a large return one gambled to win -and not to lose. It had been said that in commercial: life business was a gambling speculation, and there were commercial gamblers wno mere-; ly traded upon chance; but legiti/ mate trading could nob be likened fix gambling. The average tradei' aim-, ed at eliminating risk. The inevitable, risks undertaken by a were incidental, but knowledge and; experience reduced such risks to aj minimum. He made a study of th®, seasons, market supplies, and the: needs of the people, whereas the gam-, bier, instead of trying to eliminate; risks, aimed at eliminating certain-! ty, so that he could equalise the risk and make the law of chance as absolute as possible. Gambling and legitimate trading were as far apart as the poles. The true basis of a trader wap to give a fair return and a square deal. The businessman gained his livelihood by serving the people, and he performed a useful public func-j tion by catering for the heeds of the; community. His gains represented the legitimate payment for his labour; and responsibility, while the gambler satisfied only himself and gained his. profits/by impoverishing his fellows. The legitimate way of acquiring wealth was by intelligent industry.; Industry was service, and it was upon; each one giving service that society; was founded. Not only in the present age, but back to earliest times, if had always been a maxim that gain; without labour was unjust. The! gambler’s gains were not for any ser-, vices rendered, and, therefore, gam-; bling desecrated labour and encour-, aged people to rely hot on honestwork but on chance to acquire; we’alth. Little wonder was it, then,; that the late Sir Joshua Williams, a former judge of the New Zealand Su-; preme Court, said that “gambling 4s. the deadly foe of industry and thrift, and the close ally of idleness and dishonesty.”

Looking at gambling from the. social side of life, continued the speaker, it was recognised that morality was founded upon social relations, and the ethical quality of our acta must be tested by their social, consequences. The true bond of society was the love that showed itself by service. Love would not lightly inflict an injury, nor would it strike a bargain that would leave one party with nothing. Did the gambler show that quality of love? Was not his avowed aim to gain without giving fair recompense ? .Was he not swayed by greed, which snaps the bond ot brotherhood and sacrifices others to feelf ? Gambling' encouraged people to think only of themselves, and was a, denial of the universal law of love, sympathy, pity, and forbearance. By its very essence it destroyed all chivalrous feeling and killed the social consciousness and tended inevitably to social disaster. , The Rotarian’s motto was “Service,” compared with the “To get ail; I c'an without giving any recompense.” When gitmblers staked money they rarely thought of the people who must lose that they might win. Gambling exercised an unhealthy excitement, fostered fraud, deception, embezzlement, and such vices. It ministered to the selfishness of human nature and lessened the sense of honour, and instead of helping to build character it tended to destroy it. Gambling misused proeprty, ignored the stewardship of wealth, demoralis 1 - ed commerce, destroyed industry, discouraged thrift, and desecrated labour.

The next speaker for the affirmative Was Miss Aitkinson, who said that- normally the distribution of property, which was the product of labour, wais under the control of law and reason, but the gambler put it undei' the reign of chance. The possession of property imposed moral obligations as to it<s use and disposal, and in transferring property, either by gift or purchase, a man’s normal nature would find full exercise. In submitting its disposal to chance the will was treated irration-

ally, and the elements that constituted a man were deliberately repressed and set aside, thus dishonouring manhood. Such transference was essentially irrational and degrading to both intelligence and character. Gambling could not be said to be the action of a normal, rational being. A gambler’s action was immoral because it outraged the reason, lessened the will-power, and led to other crimes. In the act of gambling, apart from the consequences, there was the violation of moral principles. The demoralising effect of the vice was evident in the fact that few businessmen would knowingly offer a position of trust, to a gambler. The State hedged gambling with endless restrictions because the vice was immoral. To receive without giving was lowering to the recipient," and the person who took all he could in the social life should be looked upon as selfish and unbrotherly by his fellows. In conclusion, Miss Aitkinson quoted Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, as having said: “Gambling is anti-democratic and unbrotherly, .and isi not performing any service for humanity. There is no use. our talking about higher ideals, peace and brotherhood, service and humanity, when we allow gambling to have such a sway in our midst. Our nation will remain on a low plane if our people waste then’ means in pleasures that are not of a high-class order.” Miss Allen was the last speaker for the affirmative, and she maintained that the growth of gambling in New Zealand wais becoming a national peril; and yet still more racing permits were being granted. There wasno moderation where gambling was concerned, and the vice-like hold that if had on the people was leading to the deterioration of the race. Homes were wrecked through the wretched practice, and women and children were being deprived of the necessaries of life. The falsifying of accounts was in most cases directly due to gambling, and the vice appealed to avarice and sloth, two of the basest states in human nature. The fascination of gambling lay in the hope of winning money without working fbr it, and an unhealthy excitement wais caused by the anticipation of undeserved profits. Gambling could be likened not’to the craze for alcohol, but to the craze- for opium, with all its debasing effects.

THE NEGATIVE. Mr Fursden, in opening for the negative, congratulated the other’ side on the way they had presented their case, and said that after he and his colleagues had shown reasons why gambling was not essentially immoral he thought the audience womd be prepared to deliver the verdict in favour of the negative; but, of course, he adde'd, it is just, a gamble which side will win. (Laughter.) To suggest that gambling was essentially immoral was a very sweeping statement, contended Mr Fursden,'because gambling included so many kinds of speculation. The businessman speculated in shares and stocks, the farmer with seeds, stock, and fertilisers, and in all classes of sport there Was a large element of speculation present. Within the precincts of speculation ‘could be included horse-racing. Yet what was more thrilling to,see than, highly trained racehorses being pitted against one another in an endeavour to produce the best form. Healthy sport, sould never be condemned, and where healthy sport was followed speculation Was sure to abound. If the immoral • person would go in for healthy sport, with its attendant speculation, they would soon become healthy in mind and body. An immoral person was one who broke a moral law or code; and he failed to see where the affirmative speakers had shown where the speculator was immoral. Did the affirmative suggest that the majority of businessmen, farmers, and athletes were immoral persons ? he asked. , No sane person would suggest that the Government was an immoral body elected by an immoral people to permit'and legalise immoral practices. He thought the debate should be cnsidered on broadminded lines, and it ill behoved the speakers to sit in judgment on anyone. Because a person Wished to take some of hits own money which had been earned by honest toil and put it on a racehorse in a perfectly legal manner it had. been affirmed that that person was immoral, a degenerate, and a criminal. Or a person who insured his life or took up a few shares in a' concern immediately became a rogue and a blackgurad. The statement’s made by the affirmative were, to his mind, unthinkable, and he failed to see where gambling in all its forms was essentially; immoral. Mr R. Day followed, and said that gambling was necessary if business was to be conducted satisfactorily.

He' instanced the point of a farmer Jjuying seed, to sow in the ground, it being a big gamble Whether; the seed germinated and gave him any rturn for. his outlay. If the seed did hot thrive the farmer was the loser, but he had willingly taken the risk and he could not be classed as immoral. Successful' farming or trading carried every bit as much speculation as did horseracing. Even if it meant contending with the elements, the gambling’ spirit prevailed. Should tne gambling or speculative spirit be killed the world would be a very tame place. There would-be no eagerness or enthusiasm -in anytyhing, and the spirit of competition, which was the life of. trade, would be non-existent. He thought that in all'forms bf gambling it was fair to both parties, and .he failed to see. Why it should be condemned as essentially immoral. In championing the argument in favour of gambling Mr ‘Bigelow, in humorous vein, said that gambling was a pleasure, and he thought that pleasure should be the supreme aim in life. He instanced how. in the old days, the caveman set out to find a wife, and having found a woman to his liking he fought for her, always staking his life that he would win her. Who, he continued, had not seen lambs; gambolling in the paddocks. (Laughter and groans.) Referring to the Bible, Mr Bigelow reminded the audience how Joseph hhdbeen thrown into a pit and his bro- ' thers had drawn lots for his raiment, which went to prove that the gambling spirit which prevailed in the olden times had been approved of as fair and equitable. After criticising the arguments, advanced by the affirmative side Mr Bigelow said that ■he Wais prepared'to leave .the matter to the discretion of the gathering. On a show of hands being taken 47 voted that gambling was essentially immoTal and 36 voted for the negative. 1

At the conclusion the Rev. Costain said, that he wished to thank the visitors for the able manner in which they had placed their arguments before the gathering, and ‘congratulated them on having secured the verdict. He also congratulated those handling, the negative on the uphill fight they had fought.