Introduction
Government-sponsored lotteries are quite popular in the United States, mainly due to secondary and higher education sponsorship. Nevertheless, scientists believe that lotteries’ income does not supplement, but replace the existing state funds, which can be then redistributed as desired (Stivender et al. 1473). Besides, if the state sponsors lotteries, it is logical that the state’s goal is to maximize income (Stivender et al. 1500). Opponents of state-sponsored lotteries point out that people who buy lotteries do so because lottery funds are allocated to education when in reality, this is only partly. Because most buyers of lottery tickets are low-income groups, the issue requires more careful consideration and assessment. This paper aims to evaluate state-sponsored lottery programs’ ethical status in light of the ethics lectures and readings.
Utilitarian Point of View
The idea of fundraising by selling lottery tickets is utilitarian, as it aims to achieve the good of the maximum number of people. However, complications may arise during the implementation of this idea. In particular, funds that come from lotteries crowd out, rather than supplement, state educational funds. In this regard, scientists recommend introducing more transparent or more targeted allocation policies. In this way, the government will guarantee that people who buy lotteries are not deceived and can trace funds. Therefore, the issue of sponsoring lotteries by state can be solved easily.
There is also some scientific data in support of government lotteries. According to research, “the targeted lottery policy is associated with a 5 percent increase in spending on tertiary education” (Bell et al. 136). The results also show a 135 percent increase in merit-based financial assistance and a 12 percent decrease in need-based financial aid (Bell et al. 136). It is noteworthy that today 21 states allocate 100% of funds from lotteries for educational needs and charity (Stivender et al. 1478). Another six states give part of the profits from state lotteries, and lotteries in 16 states do not participate in charity programs (Stivender et al. 1478). Nonetheless, since income comes predominantly from the most vulnerable population groups, it is imperative to ensure that the government introduces more transparent allocation policies.
As for the positive moral aspects, lotteries, as a way of manifesting charity, are a blessing. In particular, scientists note that the voluntary donation of funds for education needs allows many people to find satisfaction and hope for good results (Stivender et al. 1473). However, lotteries are also an alternative to gambling, and in this sense, they are immoral. Some opponents of lotteries say that the state does not show sufficient responsibility in distributing funds and even covers up the promotion of gambling with good intentions. There is some truth to this, especially considering that in 16 states, lottery profits end up in owners’ pockets. Another negative aspect is that the state lottery legalization scheme has been used to legalize marijuana in some states (Nikkinen 476). Consequently, the ethical status of state-sponsored lotteries has different aspects.
Moral Relativism
The above was an assessment of the ethical status of lotteries from the utilitarian point of view. However, moral relativism, determinism, and non-cognitivism may take a different perspective. Moral relativism assumes that there is no single, universal morality since each person or culture adheres to its own rules and makes behavioral decisions according to these rules. In particular, individual relativists believe that there is no need for uniform morality norms for all since each person has a set of their own opinions and attitudes on any issue. Therefore, an individual relativist might say that each person can have their own idea about state-sponsored lotteries’ ethics.
At the same time, cultural relativists may assume that since society comprises different groups, each group can act according to its preferences. Cultural relativists believe that moral norms are determined by the circumstances of the culture and traditions in which people live. Consequently, a cultural relativist might say that since lotteries are in demand in American culture, it makes no sense to discuss this issue from a moral point of view, because there is no one morality for all. Both camps agree that morality is relative; however, their claim is easily refuted by the existence of the Golden Rule and other ethical norms common to most cultures and religions.
Non-Cognitive Perspective
A non-cognitivist would reject a discussion since non-cognitivism consider statements such as “lotteries are moral” or “lotteries are immoral” as devoid of cognitive meaning, that is, they cannot be said to be true or false. Non-cognitivism includes groups of emotivists and prescriptivists and relies on the ideas of David Hume, who believes that the process of cognition is empirical. Emotivists consider moral statements to be a trivial expression of emotions, for example, “Lotteries are disgusting!” or “I love lotteries!”. Therefore, they believe that it makes no sense to analyze such statements logically. Prescriptivists regard moral statements as prescriptions for action, such as “buy lotteries” or “do not buy lotteries.” Therefore, they also do not see the basis for discussing morality.
Deterministic Ethics
Determinists believe that morality is impossible since everything in the world is predetermined, including people’s actions. Accordingly, it would also be difficult for them to support a discussion about lotteries’ ethical status. In particular, determinists believe that since morality is impossible, a person has no freedom of choice. Opponents of determinism argue that if a person did not have freedom of choice, they would not be responsible for their actions, which is not so. The opponents of determinism are libertarians, who believe that a person has free will in most cases. Besides, opponents of determinism or hard-determinism are soft-determinists, who say that a person partially has free will, and therefore morality is possible.
Consequently, the determinist could assume that everything is God’s will, and if anyone suffered from buying lottery tickets, this could not be avoided, since everything is predetermined. The libertarian and soft-determinist would encourage the discussion since they recognize that morality is possible. The libertarian would ardently defend the idea of state responsibility or, conversely, the free choice of citizens who themselves are responsible for their actions. Simultaneously, the soft-determinist could be more restrained, noting the partial responsibility of the state and the partial responsibility of citizens when buying lottery tickets.
Thus, state-sponsored lottery programs’ ethical status was evaluated in light of the ethics lectures and readings. From a utilitarian point of view, lotteries are more moral than immoral, but they can also have negative consequences. Further, for moral relativism, every citizen or every culture has the right to decide for themselves whether the lotteries are ethical or not. Non-cognitivists might point out that this discussion is meaningless, since morality is meaningless, and emotivists would say that moral statements are expressions of the speaker’s emotions. Prescriptivists might note that statements about the morality or immorality of lotteries attempt to prescribe a particular point of view as a guide to action. Determinists would say that it is impossible to talk about lotteries’ morality or immorality since everything is predetermined. At the same time, libertarians and soft-determinists would support the discussion by recognizing the responsibility of both the state and the buyers of lottery tickets.
Works Cited
Bell, Elizabeth, Wesley Wehde, and Madeleine Stucky. “Sent or Supplant? Estimating the Impact of State Lottery Earmarks on Higher Education Funding.” Education Finance and Policy, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020, pp. 136-163.
Nikkinen, Janne. “The legalization of dangerous consumption: a comparison of cannabis and gambling policies in three US states.” Addiction Research & Theory, vol. 25, no. 6. 2017, pp. 476-484.
Stivender, Carol O., et al. “The Impact of Education Earmarking on State-Level Lottery Sales.” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016, pp. 1473-1500.