background information
The state owned company Holland Casino has the sole right for exploiting casino games in the Netherlands. In exchange for this monopoly Holland Casino has the social obligation to prevent gambling addiction. Having a monopoly being both illegal by European law and inefficient due to the lack of competition, the Dutch government tries to legitimize their decision by stating they control illegal gambling and addictive behavior this way.
Since the duty of Holland Casino is not only to prevent illegal gambling but making profit as well, the company actively tries to lure in as many guests as possible by large and aggressive advertizing campaigns. The most ideal state for Holland Casino would be guests visiting no more than once a week. Less would lead to a loss in profit, more would lead to addiction. This leads to a moral hard case for Holland Casino: Attracting guests is morally wrong because there is a chance they would get addicted to gambling. Not attracting guests is also morally wrong, because then guests would look for alternative (illegal) ways to gamble, leading to uncontrolled addiction.
I think this is an interesting case, because this dilemma leads to questions like: How should Holland Casino solve this moral hard case? Is it immoral for Holland Casino to advertize gambling when they have a monopoly? Is gambling on itself morally wrong? Should a state-owned gambling company pursue profit maximization?
Holland Casino added 267 million euro to the state treasury in 2007. In this case the question ”should a company have profit as a moral value?” is even more arguable. However, if the casinos lose money the control on gambling cannot be sustained. Maybe society needs Holland Casino, being the (im)morally draped company it is. Because that is morality at its summit: Acting immoral to be morally and socially responsible.
u1237582
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Best L.H Tran,
Since I am working for Holland Casino, I disagree with a few statements you are making. Firstly, the most ideal guest for Hc as a business is the regular visiting guest. Hc is not making profit from that group of 20-year olds who visit the slots every now and then. It is the regular guest who 'signs' our paychecks. Of course gambling brings some serious addictive risks with it, but what I see, from a more close position, is that (most) regular guests come for joy and distraction. It is not about the money, but they like the (service oriented-judgement free) atmosphere. For that individual who is actually addicted, there is a 'ppk' policy to monitor this person closely and advice this person. In this way Hc is a pure businness with some serious risks involved in it for the client, but I think the policy is build upon this fact and therefore I think it is simply wrong to say Hc is' Acting immoral to be morally and socially responsible': Hc is a closely monitored (well performing)business with a social responsability as well. In that way 100% morally acceptable.
s582267
Since it is the moral duty of Holland casino to make sure that people dont get addicted, they should give preference to this moral principle over all other principles. We have learned in the lectures that the moral discourse is the most important discourse follwed by legality and that's why the profit motive should not influence the "addiction" problem. I agree with Tom that most of the profit comes from the people who visit Holland Casino on a regular basis. Youngster going there before they go out do not spend a lot of money. They normally just go play poker or slotmachines for a maximum of 100 euros. Of coure you always have exceptions. People who gamble away all their savings, but these guys are obviously addicted and this refers back to the main question.
In short, since morality is more important than the profit motive holland casino needs to prevent people getting addicted, also if this means that it leads to reduced profits.
s861379
The problem does not lie at Holland Casino’s end; it is the Dutch government should reconsider their position in this matter if they recognize that gambling is a harmful activity. In that case, the end of the action should be to stop the gambling. Then the argument that they are able to monitor illegal gambling activities becomes irrelevant and does by means overrule the commandment not to cause harm to other people - it is morally forbidden to do so.
In the case that the Dutch government does not consider gambling to be a harmful activity there is no moral aspect and also no reason to monopolize it. Then they should allow all companies equal access to acquire a casino licence to open a casino and consequently strictly monitor all activities within the industry. As it stands now, the Dutch government is not being consistent with itself.
U1236311 / ANR: 169300
From the Holland Casino perspective, if this company only persuing the profit maximization, it definitlly morally wrong. While Hc commited themselves higly aware of their corporate social responsibility as one of three stratigic objectives. Furthermore, they also have policy for prevention of compulsive gambling. Thus, I think Hc is morally permissable.
From gambling itself, I consider it morally wrong, it owns a high risk to be addictive, many people spend all of their money and borrow from others just for gambling. And there are many cases to show that gambling could trigger the criminal offence.
From the govenment perspective, in many other countries, the gambling is forbidden. While in NL, it depends on how the govenment views Holland Casino, as an entertainment activity or a society harmful industry. Obviously, under the control of Queen Beatrix, they seems Hc as an entertainment activity and set strict rules to open a Hc. Thus we consider it morally acceptable.
u1234010/ANR: 947656
I think it is very good that Holland Casino is a state owned monopolistic company which pursues profit maximization. Holland Casino improves the greater good by creating an opportunity for people to relax and have a fun evening.
The other side of gambling is that people can become addicted to it. Holland casino is able to tackle this problem because of its monopolistic situation. They can prevent people from getting addicted to gambling and those people cannot go to other Casino’s because they are not there.
This two benefits of Holland Casino serve the greater good of the Dutch and so on it justifies the profit maximization which is pursued by Holland Casino.
U1237328
ANR 619284
In my opinion, gambling cannot be forbidden because it is just a nature of people to bet on something. For instance, when some people talk about a soccer match, it is not rare that people make a bet out of it. Rather than forbidding the gambling and people still do it clandestinely, it is better for the government to make it legal and impose tax on it to generate some revenues. These revenues then could be used to improve the social welfare in the form of increasing the budget for the other sectors such as education, health, infrastructure, etc.
ANR 201026
U1235043
Gambling itself is morally wrong, which makes risk of addiction. It leads people spend much money, which can cause some social problems. Some people even do not want to work but only gamble for living.
Holland Casino as a state owned company has the interest to pursue the profit maximization, but it also has the social obligation to prevent gambling addiction. It has made a policy that customers can make contract with them to limit the times that the customers can attend per month. This is a policy for prevention of gambling. From morality aspect, this is morally right.
In short, it is important for Holland Casino to balance the profit maximization and the social responsibility(to prevent gambling addiction).
S177575
Post a Comment