Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need
If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that man will have to reject- Ayn Rand.
My value is morality- Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Seeing as it is the key term in the resolution; I aim to bring the greatest morality. My value criterion is liberty- The quality or state of being free and a person's ability to pursue their own rational freedom. By upholding Liberty we will in turn uphold morality.
For further clarification, I will provide the definitions which will create the backbone of my case.
Need- Circumstances in which something is necessary in respect to survival and life function
Ethical egoism- Moral agents ought to do what is in their self interest without the direct harm of others.
Altruism- The belief in dis-interested and selfless concern for the well being of others
Contention 1: The resolution is counterproductive (in respect to morality).
Sub point a: Obligations degrade Altruism.
As ayn rand stated in the ethics of emergencies-
By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men.
As said in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy-
Moral judgments that a person ought to do implies that the person has motivating reasons to do it, and that a person is likely to have such reasons only if he or she has implicitly entered into the agreement.
The highest morality comes from being able to make choices free of coercion. Helping in need would certainly not be wrong but should not be made from fear of immorality.
Humanity can progress when individuals assist people in need without prompting or obligation; more or less mandating assistance eliminates altruism. Thus a moral obligation is scarcely moral at all.
Sub point b: By obligating people we are immoral
Consider the situation: You could say that donating an organ or blood could be considered assisting people in need. You could also consider respecting someone's religion as a moral judgment that is morally right. Now given that this goes against moral codes in some religions, such as Jehovah's Witness, telling them they are morally obligated to assist when it goes against their morals is IMMORRAL period.
Contention 2: In certain situation Ethical egoism shows greater morality than altruism.
Again Ethical egoism is the theory that a person should do what benefits them in accordance with morality. Ethical egoism does not require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Because we cannot rely on Obligation of others to run our own lives we must look out for ourselves
Let's look to Radley Balko's story of how altruism shows less benefit than egoism.
Aaron Feuerstein oversaw a Massachusetts-based textiles company called Malden Mills. In 1995, three of Malden Mills' factories burned to the ground. Feuerstein was pronounced a corporate hero when he promised his workers that he would continue to pay their salaries out of his own pocket while he rebuilt the factories, even though his workers wouldn't be producing.
Contrast Feuerstein with former GE CEO Jack Welch.
Jack Welch laid off thousands of workers in his efforts to streamline and change the focus of the company. (Let's go back to Feuerstein.) Feuerstein's pledge to continue paying his workers eventually cost them their jobs, and cost Feuerstein his company. Feuerstein ran out of money, and Malden Mills was forced to declare bankruptcy. Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from a sleepy home-appliance company into an international mega-corporation that today is a leader in several industries. For every job he slashed, he eventually created dozens of new ones; it is Welch, not Feuerstein did the most good for the most people. And in conclusion the solution presenting the greatest good would have been never been shown under obligation.
Contention 3: True altruism creates dependence.
Ayn rand wrote-
Altruism makes him feel that somebody will take care of him he feels it is not necessary for him to be productive or to take an interest in his own career. to the extent that he fails, he will become a first mortgage on the life of everybody else, which gives him an incentive not to succeed. Without altruism many more people would realize that there is no escape from the responsibility of carrying ones own weight, of providing for ones own survival and of being productive.
If every moral person were to practice altruism only the dependent immoral people would benefit. Although helping people in need is an honorable thing to do, when we tell people that they are "obligated" to help, those on the receiving end will develop a laziness or dependence upon others. Now said person is ALWAYS in need help and ALWAYS want more. This makes them a serious drain on society
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Contention 2: At the sacrifice of little, we can engender great benefits.
Sub-Point C: In the world and the U.S.A., a small loss of luxury can vastly aid poorer nations.
Ultimately, by upholding the principle of beneficence, the American individuals are GAINING greater benefits from it. Not only is helping the needy definitely a moral obligation, but it is one that also benefits us. The judge should look toward the value of “societal welfare,” as it encompasses many other values. To truly attain this state, we humans must pursue net benefits. BECAUSE the AFF. has shown 1) why the obligation is “moral,” as according to the principle of benefice by philosopher Singer, and 2) why this moral obligation upholds net benefits, as both sides – the individuals assisting and those in need of help – have much to gain, I urge the judge for a strong vote on the AFFIRMATION.
He attacked my value and value criterion by saying liberty doesn't uphold morality using an example of a women seeking abortion not being moral. This is a complete opinion and should be discounted. Id like to point you to the theory of moral relevance that shows not everyone's morality is the same. It is obviously moral to the women and even if it is not your view you have to respect hers. In every sense respecting someones liberty is moral.
On the other hand, his value and value criterion are the same thing, which shows complete ignorance for Lincoln Douglas form. He is upholding the greatest good for society with a net benefit of the greatest good. His vc is also abusive. Their is no way for the negative to uphold this because the net benefits will always fall with the aff. He has even shown this on his attack on my C1 and C2. So you must prefer my value and value criterion because it can be upheld by everyone.
On his attack on my contention one he only attacks my sub point a and fails to mention anything on my sub point b So all further arguments on that are null and void. It is now held that everyone shall agree with my example of the organ donor and the fact that certain situations are immoral when mandated by the resolution. In his attack he basically attacks the tagline saying that even if it is a moral obligation, altruism still happens. He fails to realize that im saying it is immoral to obligate assisting in need and that we can progress (as we have for thousands of years) without obligation. My first point is so Because the only reason people will assist is that they are fearful of being immoral. my opponent is still making people assist when it intervenes with their life, values, morals, and well being. This is absolutely ridiculous.
on his attack on my contention two he continues with his concern for the achieval of net benefits. When however i am arguing that not always does the net benefit of affirming happen, which i have shown through everyone one of my examples in my case. If something doesn't work 100% percent of the time then it cannot be an obligation. Look at other moral obligations like not killing innocent people. It works all the time. If a person does kill an innocent person they are deemed immoral for violating the moral obligation. Because the purpose of assisting people in need doesn't work all the time it can't be obligatory. This is the main point and SHOULDN'T BE IGNORED.
And finally his attack on my contention 3 is based on the fact that there is no study on the matter. He is right that I have no study, but that does not discredit my contention. If you think about it, why should a homeless person work when everything is handed to him? Some have obviously lacked the ambition to help society in the first place. Now look to this source of fake homeless people http://neighbors.denverpost.com... . These people have found it more beneficial to always want assistance than to follow their dreams and goals. This also discredits societal welfare in this situation because now they are draining society without providing any benefits to society. He goes on to say altruism pales in comparison to one's dreams and goals. My opponent contradicts himself because I could say the same thing for his point. Who is to say someones recieval of altruism doesn't override their goals. You say it from personal opinion as have I. The choice the voters have to make is to accept the old Chinese proverb - Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life. Now by affirming and having the original intent to assist someone in need your not truly assisting them in need. This leads into paradoxical ethics. So now you must conclude Affirmation=paradox.
Now on to my oppenents case,
In his contention 1 he is distinguishing between need and want. Basically he is telling everyone to live at the bare minimum and to donate everything else to charity because in his opinion it is the most moral thing to do. This is completely ridiculous; you can't have everybody working to support other people's lives without enjoying their own. This defeats the whole purpose of the pursuit of happiness. And that is a value I think we all can share.
In your contention 2 the situations of assisting in need you're advocating, you're not focusing on the individual aspect of the resolution. So you're arguments aren't really topical. The only way for an individual to help is to donate to your certain charities. Now you're asking everyone to conform to your beliefs and your values. Not everyone is as passionate about your charities as you are and you have to respect that. People may choose to donate their donatable money to other charities that don't assist people in need like PETA or the united Negro college fund or any college fund for that matter. By your logic you're saying it is immoral to not donate to YOUR charity.
PointZero forfeited this round.
PointZero forfeited this round.