The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
blazikin55
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 54475
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Zaradi

Con

Public - "WHAT IS ZARADI DOING!?!?! HE'S STARTING THREE DEBATES AT THE SAME TIME!? HE'S A MADMAN!!!"

Yes, ladies and gents, now that Summer is upon us I decided to try to put my own effort into kick-starting the debate community again and do a bunch of debates! These will be open to anyone and everyone! First come first serve! If I get a forfeit I just remake it.

The resolution this time is as stated:

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

This is an LD debate, so standard LD conventions (not necessarily standard LD cases) apply. Standard debate conventions also apply.

THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL BEGIN FIRST IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL POST "NO ROUND AS AGREED UPON" IN THE FINAL ROUND, TO MAINTAIN THE EVEN NUMBER OF ROUNDS.

With that being said, GL HF TO MY OPPONENT.
blazikin55

Pro

My first thing is to ask, will you accept my debate Does the movie "God's not Dead" prove the existence of god if you will and my next thing is that I wish you good luck in this debate.

You will start in R2
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

I value morality. Morality isn’t truth functional with independently competing truth claims but is instead based in rules of interaction that guide our decisions. Our decisions come from self-interest and intending to recognize desired ends. Mercer:

MARK MERCER. IN DEFENCE OF WEAK PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM. Erkenntnis 55: 217–237, 2001.

“To understand what another has done is to have a description of the action he has performed, one that reveals it to be intentional, to know an agent’s reason for performing action involves understanding his motivation in doing it. It is not enough, to understand what a person who intentionally sips from a saucer of mud has done An interpreter has also to comprehend what in desiring to sip from a saucer of mud was attractive to him. … \ One way is to connect that piece of behaviour to one or more of the strange agent’s self-regarding ends. If we can see in sipping from a saucer of mud a way of maintaining self-respect, or even a way to delight in the taste of mud, we can understand the desire the agent had to sip from a saucer of mud. We need not connect his self-regarding end to an intention to realize that end in or through his action; we need only connect it to an expectation of realizing it.”

Thus, whenever we ask questions of justice, the basis behind acting just or unjust grounded in whether or not something is in our self-interest. This is the only theory that is consistent with how people actually think. Mercer 2:

MARK MERCER. IN DEFENCE OF WEAK PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM. Erkenntnis 55: 217–237, 2001.

“weak egoism is the doctrine that all actions are performed in expectation of realizing self-regarding ends. egoism is the doctrine that behind any action whatever that an agent performs intentionally, ultimately there lies the agent’s expectation of realizing one or more of her self-regarding ends, an expectation without which the agent would not have performed the action. if an agent does not expect to forestall his own unhappiness or to promote his self-image, , in performing an action then that agent will not intentionally perform an action of that type. often we take some other self-regarding end, not as a consequence but directly as part of engaging in that activity, To enjoy tennis is to take pleasure in playing tennis, and not, to attain experiences of pleasure through playing tennis.”

So, we are moral in intending to further our own self-interest. I don’t deny that there are decisions that are to benefit those external to the self but we are motivated to take those acts in trying to recognize self-benefiting ends. Thus my criterion is realizing self-regarding ends.

First: People aren’t required to help others because we can choose if we want to help but we aren’t required or obligated. Kalin:

Jesse Kalin. Two Kinds of Moral Reasoning: Ethical Egoism as a Moral Theory. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Nov., 1975), pp. 323-356

“If I can be established, then so can I since a person's self-interest consists in those wants and desires most important to him as deter-mined by his own informed preferential valuation. There is no restric-tion on what a person can want or have an interest in. His wants may be selfish, confined to his own pleasure and advancement, or they may be nonselfish, directed toward the pleasure and well-being of another, The ethical egoist may have an interest in the welfare of others, but if he does, it is only because that other has some special connection with his wants and desires, such as being loved. Only in virtue of this connec-tion can another's wants and desires provide reasons for acting “

Now, lets respond to my opponent's arguments.

Oh wait...he didn't provide any...even though round one explicitly says he should start in round one...

This means he has a) no kind of framework to evaluate the debate and b) no arguments to affirm the resolution. Since the BOP rests on him to prove the resolution true, since he doesn't have a single argument to do that even if you hate my arguments there's literally no other option but to vote con.

blazikin55

Pro

blazikin55 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

Holy molly this site has gone down the tubes. Two open debates give me two trolls.
blazikin55

Pro

blazikin55 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
blazikin55

Pro

blazikin55 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Someone needs to learn how to debate...
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Bro, I made it plainly obvious you were supposed to start in Round one.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Zaradiblazikin55
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a substantial argument that needed to be addressed. No addressing was done.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Zaradiblazikin55
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Umm... Zaradi was the ONLY one to provide any arguments for this debate.