BUS 2207 DF Unit 7
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of the People *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2207
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by SmoothLyric30
In most casino states and counties, laws protect owners from
liability claims arising from problems caused by gambling. In ethical
terms, however, if you’re the sole proprietor of the casino, do you
feel any responsibility for this episode? Why or why not? If you feel
any responsibility, to whom would it be? What could you do to set
things right?
Gambling has been in existence for years. People try at their luck to win a big
monetary prize. There are more than just casinos tat advocate gambling,
there are other varieties of sweepstakes, contests, and state lotteries. These
organizations are not in the business of ethics. These organizations make
money off the hope, greed, and desperation of people otherwise it would be
free.
Gambling is not a secret art, those who gamble understand that the
house always wins (at least 90% of the time).
People who become
professionals are either independently wealthy or have mastered the art of
bluffing and/or learning the house trends exceedingly well to win big. As a
sole proprietor of a casino, ethically, I would not bear any responsibility for
this particular event because not only did this woman knowingly lose all of
her money, but she probably has a gambling addiction and have done petty
crimes before.
She knew the tricks to make a person vulnerable for robbery.
Since she spent almost one half of it on spirits, she is either an alcoholic or a
consistent drug user. Although her judgement is convoluted, she knows right
from wrong and was in full control of her actions. There is ethically nothing
wrong with harmless gambling as a leisure and trying your luck, just one
would purchase a scratch off or lottery ticket, It is not the responsibility or
the objective of casinos to know who has a gambling problem or a drug
problem. What I could do as a proprietor is to put these types of people on a
“no entry” list and post some information on gambling addiction. It is my
responsibility to obey and enforce the gambling laws of both state and
federal. It is up to the individual or his/her family to handle their gambling
addiction.
You’re an equal partner in a nonprofit organization that runs the
casino to support the cause of building schools for children in
impoverished sections of Peru. You spend a few months every year
down there building schools and giving free English-language
classes. In ethical terms (and regardless of what the law allows), do
you believe anyone involved in this episode should be able to sue
you personally for their suffering? Why or why not?
First, we would have to define “their” suffering.
Was there any instance with
respect to the actions of the casino or its staff that impaired her safety or
caused her harm? Did anything the casino did cause their injury? The laws
and regulations do not mandate that we interview patrons and discuss their
habits, the casino bears no responsibility for anyone that comes in and has
an addiction. He/she would not be able to sue me for suffering since any acts
of “rape” did not occur on my premises, he/she consumed alcohol freely, is
over the age of consent, and fully understands the nomenclature of casino
policies and procedures.
Ethically, I am not responsible for every customers’
morality or values.
I provide a legal service and with that comes rules and
conditions, once a patron comes through the door, they acknowledge their
acceptance of those conditions and fully understand the ramifications.
The
only exception would be if the patron was a minor or mentally handicapped.
These rules are publicly displayed and clear for every patron, nothing is
withheld so therefore, I provided full disclosure and they made the choice to
gamble, they made the choice to commit a crime to continue gambling and
devour alcohol.
Say that the casino under discussion in this set of questions is the
MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, which is owned by a
large, public corporation. You have five shares of stock inherited a
few years ago when a relative died. You are legally protected from
liability claims. In ethical terms, however, do you believe that
anyone involved in this episode should be able to sue you personally
—or just plain blame you—for their suffering? Why or why not?
As a Shareholder I am not managing the casino, I have no authority in
personnel, rules, policies, or how it is run.
My sole purpose is investment
only. I would not be responsible, nor would there be any justifiable argument
that would give validity to such a claim.
My role is invisible.
Pigouvian taxes (named after economist Arthur Pigou, a pioneer in
the theory of externalities) attempt to correct externalities—and so
formalize a corporate social responsibility—by levying a tax equal to
the costs of the externality to society. The casino, in other words,
that causes crime and other problems costing society, say, $1
million should pay a $1 million tax. In terms of casinos, would such a
tax more or less satisfy any ethical claim that could be made against
them for the social problems they cause? Why or why not?
If a mall opens and because they are successful and profitable, people start
to steal clothes or plan heists with the Brinks trucks that carry the revenue to
the bank, is it responsible for inciting crime? If a mom and pop store open in
not so nice neighborhood and someone is robbed of their groceries after they
leave the store robbed, are they guilty of negatively impacting the
neighborhood? These are business that provide jobs and help boost the
economy and the neighborhood commercial value. Crime would exist even if
the casino wasn’t in the neighborhood especially since drug addiction and
gambling addiction isn’t limited to “casinos”.
There are online sports betting
sites, state lotteries, and other social means to gamble. I don’t believe taxing
the businesses would be effective as it could also cause irrevocable harm by
moving or closing leaving people unemployed which is another facet of
desperation that could lead to crime.
Ethically, casinos aren’t responsible for
crime, they don’t bring crime, they are victims of crime, the same as banks.
A robber or gambler, or drug user will find any means to feed their
addictions, casinos might be a temptation but certainly not the root cause.
For this to be an “ethical” satisfaction, the casinos would have to knowingly
incite crime and be directly involved in it.
)
3)
4).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help