-
It's almost like the term "conflict of interest" has a meaning which is narrowly defined with legal implications.
But I'm sure that's true of lots of terms, like 'act of God' or 'contract' and that doesn't negate them having other meanings.
I think the argument that odds may have an impact similar to polls is worth thinking about, but I suspect odds are based on polls
You (and @Brommers) may be great lawyers, but I feel you would make very poor bookies or traders. Initial odds might be based on polls, but they change based on the bets people place, otherwise the bookie would be rapidly out of pocket. So they fairly directly reflect a subset of actual financial interests; polls are a rather indirect way of predicting how people claim they will vote in the future.
chez_jay-
You may be (a) great lawyer, etc...
You have no idea how right you are...
-
But I'm sure that's true of lots of terms, like 'act of God' or 'contract' and that doesn't negate them having other meanings.
Yes, things may have multiple meanings, and they may be interpreted by people differently. But there are general limits to this, otherwise communication would be very, very, difficult. I'm not a philosopher of language but have read my Austin. From that perspective I think we can agree that "Act of God" is a great example of something which does have a clear legal/illocutionary meaning as well as a more general descriptive/locutionary meaning. I don't think "Conflict of Interest" has the same distinction. I've never noticed it being used to make a claim that didn't take into account the role of the actor (that is, that they were in a position in which they were able to influence outcomes which personally benefit them). Maybe it is used in the way you are trying to claim it is, though.
You (and @Brommers) may be great lawyers, but I feel you would make very poor bookies or traders. Initial odds might be based on polls, but they change based on the bets people place, otherwise the bookie would be rapidly out of pocket. So they fairly directly reflect a subset of actual financial interests; polls are a rather indirect way of predicting how people claim they will vote in the future.
You're right - I'm sure I'd be a terrible bookie. But I suspect the likelihood of an event will always be the first consideration when devising odds and financial liability on existing bets would be secondary. Otherwise I don't thin you'll be able to realistically reassess how to adjust odds.
Anyway, since you clearly have a different definition of "conflict of interest" than me, and I'm obviously a terrible bookie, I'll bow out by saying, again, I think the ethical implications are interesting.
deleted
It's almost like the term "conflict of interest" has a meaning which is narrowly defined with legal implications.
I think the argument that odds may have an impact similar to polls is worth thinking about, but I suspect odds are based on polls, and people's decisions in terms of whether or not to vote are more likely to be influenced by polls than odds. But I'll concede there is room for the odds given for a bet impacting some people's actions.
The ethical side is also interesting, but not a conflict of interest issue. #WWKantD.