I'm not good at this type of argument, but I wonder if there is a moral conflict in even providing such grey area opportunities for profit?
I hope the question makes sense, if not just ignore me. 
Notifications
Clear all
Morality means, we are free to do as we wish PROVIDED it does not interfere with other peoples freedoms or do unjust harm to them. And so it cannot be therefore twisted into suggesting there is any morality in restricting individual A's freedom, because individual B chooses to engage -ev wager. There is no other definition of the word morality that is not subjective, and there is no subjective viewpoint that should applicable to any amount of society.
So therefore moral poker, is poker in which players are free to play. There is no other logical definition of what is moral in relation to poker.
Ah so this is where the problem comes from, you dont even know what morality means, let us use wikipedia to help you.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad, evil or wrong.
Your personal morality is the ultimate american mistake, basicly freedom > life itself. I bet that you are from the usa if you are so stubborn. By your morality drugs should flow on the streets, while gambling addicts, strippers and underaged prostitutes join the party. None of these activities interfere with personal freedom.
And i already pointed a very important part out to you, not everyone over 18 or 21 is or acts 100% like an "adult". And ppl with addiction lack their freedom of choice. So even if you use that point of view, the whole matter isnt clearly "moral".
Firstly I am well aware of the definition of the word. And what is clear is you are not well read on the term, nor the implication, nor your inherent and natural rights as a human being. This is clear, and I ask you again to tell us whether or not you claim that you are well read and/or well studied on the subject in which you profess. Because I do at least claim that this is not my opinion, but I have read many of the associated text and much of the literature.
It is not MY PERSONAL VIEW of morality I point to, but a perfectly objective view point of it. And what is clear is that you are unaware of the likelihood that your nation too has constitutional rights that are bestowed upon your peoples. This is why you mistake me for being American, which is observably not a country in reality that shares my opinion of what our rights are naturally.
I point to you that it is the very founding documents written by the forefathers of America that are extensions of their intelligent and logical arguments about what it means to be born free, and so what our natural rights are. And yes, the government cannot MORALLY impose restrictions on what I as an individual choose to put into my body, nor what I choose to do with my body. It is only a sick twisted, conditioned and illogical view that would argue other wise-a product of such a tyrannical government.
Underage prostitutes does not defeat nor address my argument since we are all well aware that a child must be raised to a reasonable capacity before they can understand and enact their own natural rights. I vehemently object to your subjective view points on my rights should be applicable and called morally so be ANY 3rd party that is not me.
Furthermore it does NOT stand to reason and is completely absurd to suggest that since one person has a gambling problem that this then lays the moral foundation for others freedom to gamble to be restricted. And yes I completely addressed those that do not have the legal capacity to make decision for themselves, and no, by no stretch of the definition does this include people that you or other deems as those with a "gambling addiction". Such is twisted logic and a restriction of our freedom.
Morally we are to be free to gamble if we so choose, and there is not objective viewpoint that can suggest it is moral to declare otherwise, by the very nature of the definition you propose, it is not good right or proper to restrict all of society because of some peoples lack of control.
Mod Mode on:
Please ensure that the conversation is civil and cordial.
Mod Mode off
The notion that freedom is the same as license is one that has grown in the USA only in recent years.
In that republic, people choose which team organises the infrastructure that governs their lives.
That DOES mean that certain necessary restrictions will be in place to ensure a well-ordered society. Theoretically at least the governed get to have a say in what those restrictions are. Too much of anything is never a good thing though. Witness the chaos in California following their "tax revolt" of a few years ago. I'm not sure how California recovered.
nor your inherent and natural rights as a human being.
There have been several attempts by several societies to define those rights. Some societies differ.
It is not MY PERSONAL VIEW of morality I point to, but a perfectly objective view point of it.
I'm not sure that there is such an objective code of morality. CS Lewis said, "We all recognise what is wrong when it is done to us". As individuals, though, we can always rationalise our misbehaviour.
Where is the objectivity?
To accept that there is a truly objective morality, it is necessary to bring in a higher power that sets that morality, and imposes it equally on all humanity. Instead, societies accept the morality that has been handed down to them by their ancestors.
Thus, Americans believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle, whereas in France they are quite willing to accept something somewhat different.
If a person is unwilling to accept the moral strictures of their society, they can work to change it, or leave.
In some societies, even these options are not available.
Peace,
VS
Please understand the specific-ness of my words. Objective morality does NOT, and can NEVER bring in a higher authority, nor can such a valid higher authority ever exist.
In other words, if you understand me, then you would ask along the lines of "Well then no such laws can exist in a moral context since there is not objective morality".
To which I respond with, and repeat, and re-affirm, there is no logical or moral foundation for you or anyone else to assert that my rights and choices should be taken away because others cannot handle their own freedoms. Such is NOT the proper function of the government not the intention of our forefathers.
And so to be clear, and as an example, it is not at ALL moral, nor in the governments intended mandate, nor logical in anyway that others freedom to gamble be taken away because of a certain individuals tendency towards addiction.I hope you understand this clear distinction, which is not only based on logic and adheres perfectly to any reasonable definition of morality, but is also the perfect intent of those that invoked the constitution.
And please fear not, you have witnessed the extent of my "wrath", I do not intend to be violent or attacking in any manner, other than to simply continue to be assertive in my claims that we must build our understanding of the morality of poker in relation to society purely based on objective logic, and not at all on anything subjective. Science and logic should prevail in this discussion and definition, and all other subjective views should be non-violently but sternly brushed aside.
I am well aware that certain powers of authority and functions and laws must exist in order that we all may maintain as much freedom as possible, however this does not at all include or suggest the above example in relation to poker or any other subject. It is never moral to take away an individuals rights based on another choices or lack of intelligence.
Sorry Vorpal, just trolling a bit, but trying to be constructive, this is basicly a political / view - on - life type of argument, you know the one where its never a logical debate and where the opinions dont really change, soon we pick up our guns and declare war ♦
I want to debate with Vorpal not John, as i would expect from an old guy with a santa hat, he seems to understand that we arent "objective", and we cant declare absolutes on a topic this hard, a huge part of what we say is simply cultural perspective and personal experience shaping our view.
Unless we read the "holy book on life" and can refer to higher authority.... John is actually trying to pull this on me ("Because I do at least claim that this is not my opinion, but I have read many of the associated text and much of the literature") but cmon, its 2015, lets leave that method to the ISIS people.
Anyway i apologise for any brain damage caused here, and officially surrender, cos we cant seem to get past even the philosophical basics here.
This is exactly what we mean to avoid. We do not intend to bring or subjective views to the picture, this is how we end up in a world with no freedoms. No subjective law should be held valid whatsoever that unnecessarily takes away another individuals freedom. This is clear, and should then be the absolute basis for the discussion. Any wiggling away from this fact is absolutely unfounded, not logical, not moral and not scientific.
Aaaaa ok its the last one i swear, now i will get coal from Vorpal for xmas for sure. The word "unnecessary" is the keyword here. Thats where it will get subjective and debatable when we put it into practical context.
But that at least brings us back to the real question.
My last effort to illustrate, you probably agree with me that underaged people shouldnt be allowed to gamble, the part where our opinions might differ is: Is a gambling addict a responsible adult? He clearly doesnt understand his decisions and their expectable consequences. Do we owe moral responsibility towards him too, regardless of his age? Its a version of mental illness, is it morally ok to abuse mentally ill people for profit? How "ill" must he be where it starts to be "not-ok"? I dont feel that there are clear absolute answers to any of these questions, and i would never dare to say that i know those answers.
I believe; we are all fish. As in life there is always someone faster, stronger, more intelligent. It is a hierarchy. We may class ourselves as efficient at certain levels or stakes but there is always someone better. Fish are at the bottom of the food chain. They will learn. New fish will always be born. It is evolution. Embrace it. Be happy. It's life! 
@JohnSmith:
What you write is good, but try to make it shorter.
@OP:
Morality is created by humans for self-happiness. You want to be "good" in your own eyes, that's all.
Playing poker for a living is neither good nor bad.
BUT
Greed cause suffering. Lost money = bad mood. Same for the pro, same for the fish.
Thus, poker for money is "dirty" as it is based on greed and as long as people play it there will be losers.
People that don't work on their game suffer by losing to those that work on it.
Imagine a boxing match where both fighters put up money, but only winner takes it. Poker is exactly the same.
It's just primitive.
@HNRoger The issue about extending the argument is it gets very exhaustive very fast, but we must realize for example that most children by the age of 3 will have spent time playing games on a cell phone. If we take away their learning time with these devices they simply won't compete. How difficult will it be to argue with them that they aren't allowed to keep the points they create? And soon exchange their points for any type digital currency...and soon after that to simply spend the game points across the net.
And then we must look at what is a gambling addiction in relation to an adult who cannot feed and sustain themselves and a child that spends reasonable amounts of time spending their game coins on more fun games. I would argue, if given more room, and quite successfully I think that the generations that will be raised under the evolution of gaming, will in fact have far less "addictive" gambling type personalities that lead to destructive lifestyles.
I simply think relying on regulations to uphold these things is a crutch that keeps us stupid and lame. I close by saying I agree, today, some regulation and government is necessary, absolutely. But while some of your argue and try to make points and conflict, we live in a very very highly and over regulated society in this world.
Most countries cannot even join the global player pool. Who here would argue this is moral?
Boxers, tennis players, mma fighters, and basically all athletes doesn't have any finish products that could benefit the society. We label them as sportmen and we could say that they entertain and inspire us in some way. However, the same people receive millions by endorsing products from large companies and we don't think they are immoral. But come to think of it, they are taking advantage of their fame to rake in extra money.
Poker is different. Poker regulars earn money from fish, and most of fish are adicted to gambling, have serious problems to quit. And sportsmen that you mentioned, they dont produce anything, but they dont contribute in making so many people unhappy
The bottom line is, I know that I am not stealing money from others. I work hard to gain edge and maintain my sanity. I'm fine with that ♦
people who are selling drugs (producing) also worked hard to make it happen, which doesnt make them moral. playing poker with edge is almost as cheating, in a similar way as casinos offer Roulette and give around 47% chance to win to other players. Especially when players use pt4, hm2 and other tools, which fish even dont know it exists since it is not commercialized at casinos.
This is exactly what we need to refute GingerKid, and please don't take offense to me pointing it out, but it seems the logical argument I give has not been presented before. What you point out in a game of Pros taking from pure and mostly or only degenerates or addicted gamblers I MIGHT agree is not moral. However that does not at all suggest that it is poker itself that is the cause. And this is why I give the example of Bill Gates playing with university kids that, if they study the game well, will have a well deserved edge and reap the benefits. This would be poker for a moral cause that benefits our society.
And then specifically in relation to your casino example, we mustn't be allowed to twist the perspective of poker from anything other than a professional player's logical (why would we accept anything less?). So then we should understand that a casino that offers a game at a -roi% for even the PERFECT player, is not a moral game but in fact comparable to a government that takes value from its citizens pockets AND WASTES THAT VALUE NOT ON PUBLIC/SOCIAL NECESSITIES.
Then when we compare a FAIR and REASONABLE Y raked game of poker in which the intelligent and well learned players win the majority of pots RATHER THAN the casinos raking in the majority of the skilled monies to be one, we can understand the relation to a free market society that TRULY supports capitalistic gain and expansion.
Originally posted by JohnSmith5555
Please understand the specific-ness of my words. Objective morality does NOT, and can NEVER bring in a higher authority, nor can such a valid higher authority ever exist.In other words, if you understand me, then you would ask along the lines of "Well then no such laws can exist in a moral context since there is not objective morality".
To which I respond with, and repeat, and re-affirm, there is no logical or moral foundation for you or anyone else to assert that my rights and choices should be taken away because others cannot handle their own freedoms. Such is NOT the proper function of the government not the intention of our forefathers.
First off, there is ALWAYS a higher authority.
If there is not, then morality, and therefore freedom disappear entirely, and it is replaced by raw power.
No one is free when everyone is permitted to -- for example -- punch anyone they want with impunity.
By your own arguments, there is no objective morality,
The right to do certain things MUST BE taken away from all members of a society to ensure that all members of that society are free to do pursue their own wants and desires without interference from those who would interfere with those pursuits.
All societies reach their own conclusions as to what is right and wrong. Setting restrictions on behaviour most certainly *is* the function of a society, and they do that by means of a government.
This is a just and moral way for a society to act.
Those to try to live outside the boundaries set by their society are punished in some way. These punishments need not even be laws.
For example:
Suppose that a group of people strongly object to the word "fack".
It is not illegal to say "fack" nor to write it. It's just that people hate hearing it. Now suppose that someone says, "That is stupid. It is just a sound. It is only offensive if people choose to be offended. I choose NOT to be offended. I will used it as an expletive whenever I want".
Although perfectly within his rights, he will soon find himself isolated from the rest of that society.
That is perfectly moral and just.
Morality is entirely subjective, and exists only within the society that defines it. As of this day, there is no overall human society. Humans are fragmented by religion, by country, by language and culture.
Cheers,
VS
Yes, cheers I am perfectly inline with the idea that we are fragmented. But it does not follow that this should extend to our "rule of law". And everything you point out is true and exactly what I made sure to suggest, except you EXTEND it incorrectly. It is perfectly complete to say, and I repeat: It is our natural freedom to have our own free will, PROVIDED the expression of it does not encroach on others.
It is a fundamental axiom. And if you are to add a rule to society you must adhere to it, and any rules that do not adhere break our fundamental rights. Suggesting I cannot freely gamble because another has an issue with gambling encroaches exactly on those natural rights.
Now here is where we come in alignment while totally disagree with the extension. There is only one society, and only conditioning and poor education traps our thinking into believing otherwise. I don't mean to dismiss reality, I realize how the world lives and functions in a fragmented way. However it does not stand to reason that our presented solutions and our collective discussion should form and function around fragmented designs.
Moral Poker, I assert, is a secure game of poker in a sustainable and profitable environment, and does NOT in any way address the morality of the game in a religious sense, which is what many people think the question refers to. And the reason I am so passionate to point this out VP, and I hope you understand the distinction I make and why I make it, and suspect and hope you do...
Is because I have come to the logical conclusion, that you cannot have a free society, if your most evolved game of essential and effective skill, is full of problematic gamblers. And this sick environment that is very observable today, is a perfect system and representation of a sick society. It is perfectly logical and reasonable to point out, if poker isn't free nor is the world, or in other words, if your collective game theorists cannot not mount a proper political movement/argument how can we expect the rest of society?
And the only argument vs this I have heard, is from the collective masses that argue poker players are not collectively that much smarter than society in this regard. And so I believe my point is then tautological, and these average thinking players exactly prove my "conjecture".
Thank you btw.
And so here we have laid the grounds for what is, in my opinion, the interesting or significant aspect of the question "what is moral poker?"
Here is a link, and I hope I do not break any terms here but I might at least run this by Vorpal in the hopes that this forum too does not censor intelligent and logical argument in order to allow obvious asinine ones and blatant shills and trolls: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/888-poker-changes-rakeback-system-one-month-notice-1508561/
All over sites will tell the players that over raking the game, and taking away perks is eventually good for the game. But it is very easy to point out, and some players have (but get drowned out by clowns), that taking money from the hard working well studied players and giving it the recreational (depositors) ONLY SEEKS TO RE-RAKE THE ALREADY RAKED DEPOSITS!!!
If we follow this obvious logic, then I would like to point out that such an adjustment and game is NOT moral because it seeks to destroy the longevity and profitability of the game in the skilled monies sense.
In other words "casino" poker, or poker in which NONE of the players have reasonable shot at winning skilled monies, is in fact a suppression of our freedom to gamble in skilled games. And it can be shown, quite easily, that such an environment will ALWAYS run in tandem with an un-free society. So it should not be so shocking then to see these peoples that cannot realize they clearly and only argue for there own suppression when they support such changes.
I maintain such action are NOT moral, and they perfectly teach us as poker players, that governments should have the largest hand in all our daily affairs, and all our hard earned value, just like the perfect comparison that some bad poker players argue that sites should have the biggest hand in poker and our possible monies to win.
On the players global community forum, we are not allowed to discuss this, and it is clear why (who pays the ad revenue?), and one wonders if the intelligent side of the argument is allowed to open, arise, and unfold here?
This is exactly what we need to refute GingerKid, and please don't take offense to me pointing it out, but it seems the logical argument I give has not been presented before. What you point out in a game of Pros taking from pure and mostly or only degenerates or addicted gamblers I MIGHT agree is not moral.
I dont take it personally, it is just a nice discussion for me where we dont have to agree on everything. What if in average, you destroy 1% of fish life completely, and 99% are just playing for fun. Is that still moral? sounds better than the case is in the reality (% of addicted fish), but still I dont find it moral way of earning money, if you contribute in destroying each 100th persons life.
Then when we compare a FAIR and REASONABLE Y raked game of poker in which the intelligent and well learned players win the majority of pots RATHER THAN the casinos raking in the majority of the skilled monies to be one, we can understand the relation to a free market society that TRULY supports capitalistic gain and expansion.
I am sure there are also intelligent fish playing poker and losing money. So we dont win because intelligence makes us better than others. We win because we are trained to win, and study regularly "winning strategy". We also win even more because we use unfair tools during game as pt4, or hm2, where you exactly see that fish 3bets 2% and you fold QQ (it is like you saw his cards). Similarly, casino doesn't win because of their intelligence, they simply win because they have (and are aware of it) that they have higher chance to win the game in the same way as poker regular player has higher chance to win (and is aware of it) vs fish. That is unfair and unmoral way of winning money. Fish is on the other hand not aware that they have less chance to win, otherwise they wouldn't play.
When I was still teenager, I was addicted to poker but on slot machines. I was playing it every day, losing all my money, hoping to find winning strategy. After I heard that mathematically you cant win vs mashine since it is implemented that way, I stopped immediately playing it. So I felt cheated, and it is that way imo. Now you can say that in poker fish has chance to win if they would start learning winning strategy. Thats true, but I am sure that if you say to fish that he has no chance to win vs regular player because they are trained and know "winning strategy" and that they are even using tools which increase their chances to win, then very likely many fish will stop playing. So imo, it would be more fair, if casinos would clearly say to each player before making deposit, that in poker there are regular players who are trained to win, and that they are using tools which increases their chance to win. In USA casinos, you have information all over casinos that it is impossible to win in a long run in casino, which is fair (they have to provide this info because of the law).