The Ethics of Suckers

I joined a new work group some years ago, and after getting my desk and my computer password, the next thing that came up was whether or not I wanted to join the office Lottery club. On learning that the people in my office each put up $10 twice each week (for a variety of different games) I declined, noting that I’d really rather have the thousand dollars ($20 per week times 52 weeks is $1,040). This did nothing to endear me to my new coworkers, who made a point of telling me that when they won the State Lottery they were all going to retire en mass and leave me and the handful of other non-players behind to run the office. In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have asked if they had ever won enough to cover the $1,040 each of them was spending per year – and I definitely should not have asked if any of them would rather have had an IRA worth $5,000 or more (they had been doing this for nearly five years at that point) instead of a pile of losing lottery tickets. But I can’t help thinking that there is a larger ethical issue in play here…

I don’t propose to debate the ethics of gambling in this space – I like a nice bet as much as the next man, and I’ve been known to play cards or buy the odd lottery ticket when I’m somewhere that such things are available. And I’m not suggesting that my former coworkers were harming themselves or their families in any way; they could afford the $20 a week easily enough. I’m not even going to debate the ethics of state lottery games, although there are certainly enough arguments for and against to keep us busy for months if this blog was about public policy rather than business. The point that came to my mind today as I was considering buying a ticket for one of my state’s new games was issue of whether we, as business people, would have any responsibility to keep people from actually harming themselves with bets they can’t afford…

Consider, for example, the case of a retailer who knows that a given customer is wagering his or her rent money on state lottery tickets – or, worse yet, the money they need to purchase their meds and stay alive for another month. There is no law against making bets you can’t afford to lose, of course, nor is there any law (of which I’m aware) analogous to the one that would require a bartender to cut off a drunk patron before they can harm themselves or endanger others. At the same time, there really isn’t any question at this point that gambling addictions are real, and that some people will, if not prevented from doing so, gamble away not only the money they need to stay alive, but that needed to feed and shelter their families, or even worse. If the retailer knows this to be the case, does he or she have an ethical responsibility to cut the customer off at a sane number of bets?

On the one hand, it could be argued that the customer is a (presumably) competent adult, and should be allowed to make all of his or her own purchase decisions, even those where are ultimately detrimental or potentially fatal. Certainly, no one wants to have to convince a retailer to allow them to purchase alcohol or unhealthy foods, just to take the obvious example. On the other hand, most bartenders will cut someone off if they believe their customer is at risk for alcohol poisoning or driving drunk, even in places where there is no law compelling them to do so. And, in a more general sense, the principle of enlightened self-interest suggests that keeping a customer alive, so that he or she can continue to purchase things from you in the future, is a far better strategy than just letting them crash and burn. But I can’t say I like the thought of some store clerk getting to decide whether or not I get to buy a lottery ticket this week any better than the next person. Which brings me to the question:

Do we, as business people, have any ethical responsibility to our customers to try to prevent them from harming themselves through irresponsible purchases, even if those purchases are legal? Do we, as citizens of a still (effectively) free Republic have a responsibility to guarantee that all members of our society are free to destroy their lives or even their bodies as the result of harmful purchases, even though we know they are going to do so and have the means to prevent this? Or should we just offer legal goods and services for sale and let our customers make their own decisions, good or bad?

It’s worth thinking about…