Rich people are morally obligated to do charity
Debate Rounds (3)
I am negating the resolution.
Now to set a few ground rules for the debate...
2 week voting period.
72 hours to argue
8000 character rebuttal limit (cases can be posted in a link).
"Process of a debate:
The affirmative team states its case (opinion)
The negative team cross-examines (argues against) the affirmative team"s opinion
The negative team states its rebuttal (opposing opinion)
The affirmative team cross-examines the negative team"s opinion
The affirmative team states its case
The negative team cross-examines the affirmative team"s opinion
The negative team states its rebuttal
The affirmative team cross-examines the negative team"s opinion
The affirmative team gives a conclusion
The negative team gives a conclusion
The term moral obligation has a number of meanings in moral philosophy, in religion, and in layman's terms. Generally speaking, when someone says of an act that it is a "moral obligation," they refer to a belief that the act is one prescribed by their set of values. To make things easier a "moral obligation" means to decide right from wrong.Charity is the voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.
Rich people should do charity because there are people living in poverty. Rather than spending the money of the rich people on partying or buying extras, luxury and not so necessary for them, those money could be donated to save the people are dying on the street and those living in poverty. Rich people have more than enough food and money to deal with day to day expenses and of course they would still have lots of money after spending on their self-interests.
Sacrificing those extra money that without that money the rich people can still live more than fine and still be rich, can save the people without the donation they could die right at the moment of deciding whether to donate or not. They say big person do big things and small person do small things. so normal living standard individuals can sacrifice may be the lunch money or a cup of coffee just so they can save a dying person and change that person future forever and for sure they wont die from missing out a cup of coffee or a lunch meal. So why don't the rich people give a small portion of their spending like may be a cup of expensive coffee but for them its normal. those money can help to save may be more than just one dying individual and of course that would depend on the amount donated. As the result, why not donate? Not just rich people but everybody who thinks its morally right to
do charity can help the people living in poverty and on the verge of dying have a normal life with just about enough food and drink and a good shelter not yet talking about the standards and quality of the food or drink because before donation, they did not even have food or drink at all.
From the benefit for society point of view, when rich people do charity equal to investing into the future, meaning that the kids or even the people living in poverty can have education. The reason behind the crime rate is increasing would be the kids and the people are uneducated and why is that? because they don't have the money to go to school, to pay for school fees or equipments at some places they don't even have a school at all, so they stay home and are uneducated. When I said investing into the future, I meant in a way that not like business investment and get returns as profits, but what that means is that the children that receive donation can have a school to study in and get enough food supplies to be healthy enough to study. These kids who get the chance to receive education will then be able to earn a living in the future and get out of the poverty life and help to make the country grow stronger. For example, in Vietnam, the country itself is not rich and wealthy but the individuals are more than rich they are crazy rich, however the poor is also crazy poor. So if there is no donation, the poor kids can go to schools then graduates, go to work earn their own living and the poverty rate in the country as a while would decrease and the country economy would sure to be strengthened. So if you, the rich people who own a business or a company or even work for a company would definitely be beneficial if the economy as a whole is getting better and strengthened.
I move that rich people are not morally obligated to do charity. I will now attempt to define the terms in this issue.
The term 'moral obligation' is vague. Morality differs between people, between social classes and cultures. It is dependent upon the set of values and beliefs of each person, and is influenced by their experiences and interaction with others. For the sake of this argument, I will define 'moral obligation' to be a responsibility based upon the general values and beliefs of a reasonable man of society, 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. I move that the rich people are not morally obligated to do charity.
Meritocracy & the Economy
It is regarded that the rich have more than enough for themselves. Yes, they have more than enough and giving up some food to the needy would not hurt them. So should they give up what they have for the poor? No. They have earned it for themselves, by having good education, making good decisions, or inheriting what their successful parents/grandparents have earned. They have a right to it, so why should they be compelled to give it up? Plenty of the rich have made their money fairly, working hard and making their way to the top, Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs come to mind. To make them give up part of their hard-earned wealth goes against the principles of meritocracy and fairness. When the system of meritocracy fails, so will work productivity, for none will starve regardless of whether they are employed, regardless of whether they work hard and be promoted. People will become dependent and reliant upon the donations of the rich, and stop working to improve their own lives. Technological advancements will cease as there is no longer a point to rake in cash if the CEOs will have to donate most of their profits. The economic machine will cease to function. This will be no better than a communist society, and will lead to greater suffering in the long run. A compelled donation might help the poor immediately, but would be detrimental to the whole society in the long run.
Spirit of Charity
Obliging the rich to provide financial aid or help to the needy goes against the spirit of charity. An important element of charity is that the donation is purely voluntary and done willingly, out of kindness and compassion. To be compelled by a moral obligation to donate is no different from making a donation during an election campaign in a bid to portray oneself as a benevolent character so as to garner more votes. This is a perversion of the spirit of charity. So long as the donation does not come voluntarily from the person, it is not charity.
An obligation placed upon the rich to donate to the poor goes against the principles of personal autonomy and freedom of choice. A loss of freedom of choice could lead to loss of chance. Imagine a scenario where a major pharmaceutical firm had to cut back on funding on research as the board of directors needed to donate a major portion of their profits, and had that research been carried out properly, they will have found the cure for cancer. Yes, this appears exaggerated, but it is possible, as a loss of choice could have opportunity costs.
All in all, compelling the rich to 'do charity' based on 'moral obligations' goes against the principles of personal autonomy and renders the act not 'charity', and could lead to greater societal problems in the long run.
My rebuttals will be based on your arguments and I would like to use references for my case.
"So should they give up what they have for the poor? No. They have earned it for themselves, by having good education, making good decisions, or inheriting what their successful parents/grandparents have earned. They have a right to it, so why should they be compelled to give it up? "
Well. not exactly they have to do it depending on where the money comes from or how they have earned it. Say the rich people have the ability to earn the money because of inheritance from previous generations or by their own effort. That of course the rich and successful individuals are like that because they are given the chance that the poor people could have never dreamed of. So the rich people are most likely lucky in their career path and they are for sure helped by others as well. Based on this, I can say that if the rich people put or themselves have been in the position of struggling to live or seen a scene of people dying and living from poverty and have been helped by other who have the ability to help these rich people became rich on their career path. Charity is giving of help and typically money, as mean of help, nobody can do things on their own, ever since the day we were born till death help is always needed. Now the needs of those, whom are starving to death and living in poverty is more vital and urgent so why don't we help?
For example, when you need help from somebody because you used to be rich and now you are bankrupted and now you live below the poverty line. How does that sound to you? now you are in the same position with those people and probably wishing somebody, who kindly do charity and donate for you so that you can live your day off.
Australian philosopher: Peter Singer says we have a duty to reduce poverty and death simply because we can.
"...the failure of people in the rich nations to make any significant sacrifices in order to assist people who are dying from poverty-related causes is ethically indefensible. "
It is not simply the absence of charity, let alone of moral saintliness: It is wrong, and one cannot claim to be a morally decent person unless one is doing far more than the typical comfortably-off person does.
Peter Singer, Achieving the Best Outcome: Final Rejoinder, Ethics & International Affairs, 2002.
Singer's argument goes like this
-Suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad
-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
-'Sacrifice' here means without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent
for example: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This may ruin my clothes but that would be insignificant while the death of the child would be very bad
we can reduce avoidable death and suffering by giving to famine relief etc. and the cost of doing so is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living
This argument applies both to immediate emergency famine relief and long term development aid.
therefore we ought to give to famine relief etc."
"Imagine a scenario where a major pharmaceutical firm had to cut back on funding on research as the board of directors needed to donate a major portion of their profits, and had that research been carried out properly, they will have found the cure for cancer."
Yes this can happen, but as I stated in my previous case. they morally decide on the amount they want to donate and its the people who donate decision. We are responsible for whatever we do, so if now your company is rich and have a lot of profits, even if you give out a major portion of that, its still your decision. If you made you decision that you would donate that then there is no regrets. Also this rarely happens because when every organisation , especially lung cancer developers would not often donate money but rather use the money to make the products so that they can find the cure to save the people living in poverty with diseases such as cancers and many more caused by polluted air and water and no food etc.
And to sum up its clearly that the rich individuals should do charity, even though its not their duties but as human we care for one another and of course nobody is willing to use your money on something you don't want to. However, if there is nobody forced you to donate, seeing the view of a kid dying in front of your eyes and with the lunch or a cup of coffee money you can save his/her life in that instant? Wouldn't you feel good after saving a life? and this doesn't apply for just rich people but everyone with the ability and willingness to help those in needs cause maybe one day, we could find ourselves in the same position and wishing for people being morally obligated to save your life or someone you know.
addiedd forfeited this round.
BBubble21 forfeited this round.
addiedd forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate