The Instigator
Fadedglory25
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Are people morally obligated to help the less fortunate?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,094 times Debate No: 20018
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Fadedglory25

Con

Lets do LD debate . :D Pro starts please.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

Definitions:
moral obligation - an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong
less fortunate - having poor fortune when it comes to acquiring life's necessaties (e.g., food, water, shelter, medical care)

Con will start the debate, because it would be unfair for me to have two rounds to argue my case while Con only has one.

Thank you. Good luck.


Debate Round No. 1
Fadedglory25

Con

"No one is coming you are responsible for your life for your self-esteem, for your own whole destiny。"- Unknown
It is because I agree with Unknown that I must negate today's resolution
The Value I will be upholding in today's debate is Individualism
Supported by the Criteria of Egoism
Before proceeding, I feel it is important to offer a few counter definitions:
Egoism- the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's interest
Individualism- The idea that the individuals come before the society
Survival- the act of surviving
Obligation- the requirement to take some course of action
Morality- morals or characters
Lets look at my first contention - We have to survive
It may be nice to help someone but why should we help if we're poor. It's every man for himself out there in the world
Life is hard. if we helped every poor person, where would we be?
My second contention- We are not obliged to help people.
. it might seem forced if we were obliged to help every person.We have freedom of choice.
In this speech, i have shown you that we have to survive and we are not obligated to help others. Both of these contention help to uphold my Value of Individualism and the Negative meets the Criteria of Egoism
Thank you for your time. I'm just a beginner. :D
InVinoVeritas

Pro

"It may be nice to help someone but why should we help if we're poor. It's every man for himself out there in the world
Life is hard. if we helped every poor person, where would we be?"

Philosopher Peter Singer came up with this simple argument:

"P1: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.

P2: 'If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.' [(i.e., Singer's Greater Moral Evil Principle)]

P3: It is in our power to prevent suffering and death by giving money to causes such as famine relief.

C: Therefore, we have a moral obligation to give money to causes such as famine relief. We should give and it is wrong not to give." [1]

If we have the means to help others who are suffering without causing ourselves to suffer, as well, we should help those who are suffering. There's more to this theory, such as an answer to the question "How much exactly should we be giving?" but the above will suffice for this debate.

"it might seem forced if we were obliged to help every person.We have freedom of choice."

We're talking about moral obligations right now. As I defined it above, a moral obligation is "an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong." When it comes to helping poor people, we have the freedom to ignore moral obligations and act as we wish, but does that mean that it is not a moral obligation. Freedom of choice sometimes enables us to ignore moral obligations, but that does not mean that they are not moral obligations.

---

And finally, Egoism does not necessarily mean we cannot help others. "Egoism also does not imply that we should never act altruistically. Rather, it implies that we may act for the benefit of others so long as that act also maximizes our own hedonic utility." [2] Indeed, altruism does stimulate the feel-good part of our brain, so this may be interpretted as being somewhat hedonistic. [3]

[1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...

[2] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[3] http://www.wildmind.org...

In conclusion, people are morally obligated to give to the poor.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kelsey.elly 5 years ago
kelsey.elly
I don't think you can tell someone what they are morally obligated to do. Morals are not a defined thing so you can't tell someone what they think is moral.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
""No one is coming you are responsible for your life for your self-esteem, for your own whole destiny。"- Unknown
It is because I agree with Unknown that I must negate today's resolution"

*Facepalm*

Fade, if a quote is by "Unknown" that doesn't make the person's name unknown, it means we are not aware of who said that quote.

I'm already in favor of Pro.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
Key definitions would also avoid a semantic argument, your really want to defined "less fortunate" because that can be easily flipped around in Pro's favor.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
You need to make the resolution as a statement.
People are morally obligated to help the less fortunate.

Watching this one, though.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Fadedglory25InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: did con argue?
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Fadedglory25InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was careful: It's a moral obligation to help the poor, but it's immoral to force people to help the poor. It's certainly immoral to demand help if you don't need it.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Fadedglory25InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's arguments were refuted but PRO's arguments were unchallenged...Because this is practically 1 round of debating
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
Fadedglory25InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I would not necessarily call this a debate, but argument goes to Pro because his argument not only attacked Con's argument, but it seemed to be the only argument in this round that made sense.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
Fadedglory25InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: All of Con's objections were answered. Not even close.