3 ms·
Isn't the fact that you cand use gambling as insurance and insurance as gambling support the idea that they are the same? If it all depends on the context, then
by lucianbr 2y ago
Isn't the fact that you cand use gambling as insurance and insurance as gambling support the idea that they are the same? If it all depends on the context, then it's not the activity that is different, but the context.
To me it sounds like you're saying whenever you like it, you will call it insurance, and whenever you don't like it, you will call it gambling. "It" is not apriori anything, until you have decided what you want to call it. That makes it all the same thing, pretty much.
- csande17 2y agoYou can use some gambling products as insurance, but insurance products are designed so you cannot use them as gambling. At least in terms of products sold broadly to the general public, which is the main situation where people worry about gambling being immoral. As other commenters mention, the main way this works is by making it impossible to "win" at insurance. You aren't hoping for the rare payout event to happen, like you would be when gambling. Having your house burn down, or getting into a car accident, or needing treatment for cancer, or dying are all really bad even if insurance reimburses the monetary costs involved. This is probably why the concept of "insurable interest" exists; without it, it would be possible to use insurance products as gambling.