SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (423052)7/5/2003 12:39:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
Bill Bennett's taking profits from books that preached the glory of virtues while irresponsibly gambling away millions...

I don't defend gambling (in fact I am against gambling, even Bingo, the Lottery and very much of what goes on in the stock market, this, for spiritual reasons), but I do not think most people who criticize Bennett have thought through their response to him.

Can one preach virtue and yet gamble responsibly? I think they certainly can because gambling in itself is not naturally immoral. Indeed, it is part of natural human life.

We ought not get carried away by the apparently large numbers involved with the Bennett case. The principles involved are at issue. Bennett's loss of a million dollars could be the equivalent of my loss of a $10 raffle ticket at the county fair. But is my gambling the $10 irresponsible? Does it forbid my ever preaching virtue? When Aunt Mable loses $30 at Bingo is she being immoral simply for the gambling? Not at all. Irresponsibility takes place when an action causes one to infringe upon the rights of another. Bennett apparently absorbs his losses without doing any such thing.

I nevertheless do not think Bennett was wise in his gambling because the industry of casino gambling is too infested with people who infringe upon human rights as a matter of course. Bennett is guilty by association, but only by association. Such guilt is quite false. But that fact just does not matter to most people.

There is no hypocrisy in Bennet here. He simply thought his attempts at discretion would be enough to overcome the moral ignorance of society. He was obviously wrong.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News