The Instigator
Con (against)
8 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,923 times Debate No: 27119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




Throughout the world, there are many different different moral standards set through society. In many of these cases, individuals will help one another in order to fill their obligations as a person. This brings me to the resolution:
Resolved: That individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Before I begin , I believe it is nessisary to define the following key terms.
Individuals: a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
Moral:of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong
Obligation:something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom.

Let me present my core value for today's round. Social Contract. Our moral framework as individuals comes from the social contract. THe social contract contends that humans are self-interested evil creatures. Therefore, we sacrifice all our rights to a sovereign (government, dictator, whatever), and that sovereign decides upon a fair system of obligations and punishments that everyone abides by. The extension of this point is that the sovereign cannot institue a punishment for not being altruistic because there is no corresponding right which is surrendered to the sovereign. Therefore, no moral obligation arises.
Supporting my core value for today is my criteria, morality. That standards set for morality are different throughout our world. Therefore, we must use the morality of human nature as our referance. The morality of human nature states that people(us) generally want to help others as we have helped them.
For this debate, I would like to state the following two contentions,
1. We cant blame individuals who fail to assist. AND
2. Obligation to assist is over-demanding.

Lets begin with my first contention, We cant blame individuals who fail to assist.
As shown n my core value, we the people have given up our moral rights to our government, for them to decide for us. Since then, they have made laws set to keep order and for everyone to make moral choices. One of these laws is a Fail To Assist law, made in every state to help one another. For example, Since automobiles first hit the road, states have developed a range of laws about driving. Driving a car is considered a legal privilege, not a right. As part of that privilege, state laws impose both limitations and duties on drivers whenever they get behind the wheel.

One of these duties is the duty to stop and help when you've been involved in a car crash or accident. While each state's "stop and render aid" law differs slightly, almost all states impose a legal duty on drivers to stop, identify themselves, or provide assistance whenever they're involved in a car crash.

Assistance laws are sometimes referred to as "hit and run" laws because they are designed to prevent people from leaving an accident scene. Being involved in a car accident doesn't always mean that someone acted illegally or committed a crime. However, any accident can result in criminal charges if a driver chooses not to stop, identify, or provide help. It's not the accident that creates the crime, it's the driver's actions afterward that do.
Punishments for not rendering aid may be jail time,fines,restituton,probation,and and on some occations, death. Which brings the question, Should we be punished because simply because we failed to render some sort of aid. In 2003, multiple cities reported a dramatic increase in criminal charges, 51% of failing to render aid. So lets say a fellow classmate or worker is choking. You do everything in your power to help him/her, but it isnt enough to save that person. Does it fall upon you, or the choking victim?

Finally we go to my second and final contention, obligation to assist is over demanding.
As you may know, we way we make money, achieve life, and hope for a utalitarianism, depend on how the economy is. Because of this, we have depended on our government on multiple things. One of these is to solve EVERY problem in the nation we face. An example is the United States constitution. Though made to give all equal rights to the people and government, it is belived by 86% of americans that it is their power to take control and, as shown in my second contention, help render aid to us. It's more than a little disturbing to look around and notice the degree of dependence we have for the federal government. Is it really the role of the federal government to manage the affairs of each individual citizen?

As is evidenced by the stimulus package, the bank and auto bailouts and now health care, we are a nation in real danger of becoming entirely too dependent upon our government.

I call this phenomenon the "baby sitter mentality." By this I mean that we are so used to having someone else "fix" our every problem that we now expect the federal government to take care of us - no matter what. By thinking this way, each of us regresses into a child-like state in order to be cared for by someone else.

The 19th-century French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted this trend on the horizon while traveling in the recently formed United States. Even then, he warned of the dangers of becoming perpetual children of the state instead of a nation of the self-governed.

How long will we be able to maintain this attitude of choosing to be cared for before it turns into forced submission?

The federal government does, and rightfully so, provide for the common good of the country and, thereby, her citizens. However, there is a huge distinction between providing for the common good, so that all citizens may freely seek to achieve it for themselves, and attempting to provide the common good itself.

Each time the federal government intervenes in the lives of private citizens (bailouts, individual health insurance mandates, etc.), it sets a dangerous precedent with regard to the power of the federal government to control the interactions, affairs and, more to the point, well-being of individuals.

Lately, we've had problems with "helicopter parents" in our country. These are the parents who "hover" so close over their children that they never learn to do anything for themselves and are robbed of their own self-reliance. It makes sense, then, that we have the same problem with our federal government.

We've gone running to the baby sitter for help for so long that we have forgotten how to fix anything on our own. So, instead, many spend beyond their means and neglect important aspects of life, knowing that someone else will bail them out, slowly forgetting that our very nature as Americans is to be self-reliant and independent. We become content that we are incapable of functioning without the approval and direction of the federal government. Lest we forget that we created it, and we control it.

FDR commonly justified his sweeping social reforms by quoting, "Necessitous men are not free men." He reasoned that if the federal government freed the American people of want, they would be truly free to seek happiness. However, in providing everything, haven't we created a society that is in constant need of some type of help? So far, we've had federally funded bailouts, handouts and, on the horizon, government-run health care - and that's just 2009. THink of the increase in the future years. As shown in this contention, Americans are too dependent on our government, and the society around us.


I would like to start by saying this is my first debate on this website and best of luck to you.

While yes, many would say that human beings are self-interested (but not necessarily evil) creatures, your statement regarding the "Social Contract" does not entirely apply to the given topic. People do sacrifice certain rights towards some sort of government, but not all of them. Depending on what type of government that may be; the people, elected officials, or ruling powers decide upon a set of laws that everyone lives by. However, this does not mean they make decisions on the moral values of the individuals that make up the lands within their power, and for the most part many people are granted certain freedoms in their countries. Moral obligation is not decided upon by the ruling powers that govern the nation one lives in, by definition morals are a person's standards or beliefs regarding what is right and wrong based on personal experience. Now how can you claim that because governments do not institute punishments for lack of altruism leads to no moral obligation, when moral obligation is different for each individual and is not controlled at all by the government?

Your first contention could not be more true, we simply cannot blame individuals who fail to assist. Everybody's lifestyles vary significantly across the globe, and who are we to say that it is wrong for them to not assist others when in fact it is they that need the helping? Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Driving on your own property on the other hand, is perfectly legal. If you are involved in an accident, whether or not it is your fault, you should be morally obligated to get out of the car and discuss the situation with the other driver whether or not it is required by law. That is where the failure in your argument lies. Yes there is a law requiring the driver to provide some sort of aid, but by definition moral obligations are based on personal experiences. If you were hurt in an accident and the other driver sped off, that would be an experience you had regarding accidents. Now what if you were the driver that sped off? That day would haunt you for the rest of your life, because your morals (what is right and what is wrong) tell you that you should have helped that person. Never mind the fact that you broke the law already, you would feel morally obligated to have helped that person. The same example could be used in your choking scenario. If you were choking and everyone around you simply stared at you as you choked to death, everyone that witnessed this would be haunted by that day because their morals tell them that it was wrong not to help. If you saw someone choking, would you just sit and watch as their face turned purple and they gasped for air? Even the simple act of saying, "Someone help, this man/woman is choking!" would be considered assistance and you could have saved their life. If you do everything in your power to help the people involved in these scenarios, you did not defy your morals, but simply it was not within your power to save/help them.

The obligation to assist is over demanding. Before I analyze what you have said regarding this I would like to make a statement of my own concerning this. The obligation to assist is not over demanding for all, this statement is so generalized that it simply cannot apply to every single personal scenario around the globe. For some, the obligation to assist is non-existent. For others, the obligation to assist is their life. It is unfortunate that many people in this world that need assistance don't get it, and many that don't need it all get too much, but it is simply a result of the society we live in. If every single person on the face of the Earth was more concerned about the well-being of others rather than themselves, we would truly live in a utopia. Now to speak on your points regarding this matter, you simply cannot make these generalized statements that claim that every person's happiness depend on how well the economy is functioning. Utilitarianism is a theory that states the proper course of action is one that maximizes happiness. Your statement is simply too bold, too generic to be applied worldwide. We do not depend on the government for happiness, and if that is the case for you then I truly do feel sorry for you. Government does have an increasing role in our lives. I could go extremely in-depth on how the automobile industry bailout and the stimulus package actually prevented an even worse economic situation than we are in now, but that would be going off the topic that we are currently debating. I wholeheartedly agree that a majority in the up-and-coming generations are being "baby-sat". It is extremely unfortunate, but it is not just a result of increased government. It is a different generation that is for sure, seeing as I am part of this generation I am witnessing it first-hand.

"The federal government does, and rightfully so, provide for the common good of the country and, thereby, her citizens. However, there is a huge distinction between providing for the common good, so that all citizens may freely seek to achieve it for themselves, and attempting to provide the common good itself."

I could not have said that better myself my friend. However, you are veering off-topic slightly. Now you are going into increased role of government and the effects it has on the economy, "helicopter parents", and social reforms. We are entering a globalized era, and there needs to be changes made to adapt to the times. While I don't agree with everything that has happened in the past few years, I don't believe that this entirely pertains to the topic.

It sounds as if you are trying to use these examples to explain how future generations are becoming complacent with being pushed along by higher powers instead of rising to the occasion and becoming their own individual person. I will drive back to the original topic and make some points of my own.

“A character is defined by the kinds of challenges he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him remorse.” -Arthur Miller

Now some people are simply without the power to help in certain situations. But there are some things that almost every single person feels morally obligated to do. If you see someone is walking towards the elevator you are standing in or the door you just opened, do you simply ignore them or make the small amount of effort required to hold the door? If you see someone has dropped something and needs help picking it up, do you help them or walk by? I have always been told by my father that your character is defined by your morals, and your morals are defined by your actions. Morals are unique to each individual, and if they walk away from a situation that they know they could have assisted in they would feel remorse. However, if they took the time to perform this simple task to assist another human being it would not only make them feel better about themselves, but it would also change the personal experiences of the person being helped. This may cause them to assist others in this way, and this network could spread across the globe.

Ideally, this would be how the world works. As of right now it is not, but hopefully we, the human race, are moving closer towards a society where this is the case. Fundamentally, your argument is flawed simply because you believe morality is something that is decided upon by higher powers when in fact it is uniquely tailored from the events that make up our lives. If every person had the mindset that their morals were pre-determined by some higher power we would live in a dystopia. Everyone makes their own choices, defines their own characters, by living their life and making decisions on their own. Government may be increasing its presence in our everyday lives, but they do not control our minds.
Debate Round No. 1


Why my friend, this country was soley made to escape the harsh environment that Britain made for us. We the people created the constitution to create equallity for all. We the people created this government to speak for us. We the people wanted to provide the common defence, promote the general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and enstablish the Untied States of America for freedom for all. And if you believe that the government we created(formed by the people) would lead to a dystopia, that is just a fallacy of hasty generalization. So your saying that we make up our own mind on eveything, but that is not the case. The government influences a great percentage of our thoughts. And even if we come up with our own idea(laws) the government will have its say upon it no matter what. Therefore your attacks are false reasoning.
You simply cannot say the government has no influence whatsoever on its people. After all, that is what laws are for, to make sure that we as people stay in line. In my first contention you said that if somebody fled from the accident, they would feel the guilt and sorrow in future references. Also that they knew that it was their moral obligation to assist that person in need. But if he/she did indeed run from the scene on purpose, i doubt he/she is going to have the guilt of not stopping. Same goes for the choking senario. If everyone is staring at the choking victim and doesnt help, they must not feel guilt for not helping.This proves that human can be self cntered and only think about theirselves. There are many reasons why a person might not help. Racism, hate of culture, or dislike of personality may cause that person to not render aid. That is why laws are made to make sure somebody does render aid, whether they like it or not.
In my second contention, You stated that not all of our obligations are over-demanding. Think of it this way. Hurricane Sandy devistated the country with over billions of dollars in damage. Now, when this storm was over the horizen, everyone was told to evacuate the area and to leave immediantly. in fear of things being stolen, many stayed to protect the things they love, inspite of the warning. Hours later, Sandy arrived and tore through the costline of New Jersey and shredded the homes of hundereds of thousand people. After the water had calmed, thousands were left on the rooftops of their now damaged house. These Americans did not turn to their neighbors for help. They quickly expected the U.S. military to save them from the crisis and solve the problem. With water levels over 10 feet high, and rapid water currents, none dared to challenge the sea to help one another. They simply waited until government aid came to rescue them. Same goes on every days of our lives. Another example is 911 emergency, a government funded program that saves the lives of everyday people. For any major accident, the people involved immediantly call for assistence from the government. Lets say a house is on fire, and there is a trapped family inside. The human instinct is to call for help(911) and wait for assistance. With over tens of millions of American living in this country, it is easy to understand how staggering the numbers are. After all, for every 3 seconds there is another call entering the call center everyday.
Now you said some people are simply without power to help in certain situations. we shall use your elevator example in this case. Now while holding an elevator may be polite, it does not compare to helping someone escape the path to death. As i said ealier, if the person walks away from an accident with no intentions of helping that person whatsoever, then what makes you think that that person is going to feel remorse. Considering that he already has commited a crime for not assisting aid, he/she should have no problem trying to forget and ignore the fact that he didnt stop.
We as Americans have given our moral obligations to the government, ever sense this country was created. We have sent representative to speak for us and to make the decisions of right and wrong. The same goes for other countries. China for instance, is a communist ccentral goverment controls the obligations off all of its citizes. Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam have followed and are some of the other communist countries that all decide their moral obligations for their people. Because we have given our obligations to the government, no obligation can arise from us.


The Pilgrims left Great Britain to escape religious persecution, start a new life, or to seek new opportunities. Yes we created the Constitution to create equality for all, but would you say that our society is truly equal? No it isn't. If we were to live in a perfectly equal world it would be the farthest end of the political spectrum of Communism. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people as said by Abraham Lincoln [1] We did not create this government to speak for us, we created it to hear the voices of all the people and make decisions based on that. When I referred to a dystopian society I was simply stating that if the government had control over our psychological makeup, where they could decide what we thought was right and wrong in every facet of life, we would live in the worst possible society. There would be no individuality, ultimate control would have been surrendered to the government. It is not a fallacy of a hasty generalization, it is simply analyzing your comments and stating the facts that the government does not have control over our morals, our psychological makeup, our personalities. The government is there to provide order in what otherwise could be a chaotic world. Without the government, who's roads would you be driving on? Who would you call if your house was on fire, if you got robbed, if you witnessed a murder? Putting it simply, the government has organized these services to be more readily accessible by the people in case of emergencies. If there were no government at all, would you trust privatized police stations, fire departments, etc et era for all the facets of life that our government has provided so far?

The government does in fact have a great influence on the people, I never said that they did not. I simply said that they do not have the extent of control that you have stated so many times. Every facet of life has an influence on your thoughts, not just the government but companies, people, society, nature, history and the list goes on. Being an individual means you can draw on all of these experiences and make your own decisions on what is right and wrong. And this is where I contested you before on this issue. The topic of this debate that you decided upon was that individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Moral obligations are unique and determined by each individual person drawing on their own experience and knowledge.

Back to the car accident scenario, people that have been the culprit in fatal hit & runs are haunted for the rest of their life by that moment. Many people have turned themselves in because they could not handle the emotional stress that buries them after greatly influencing so many lives in such a dramatic negative way. The fact that they ran from the scene of the crime does not mean that they do not feel guilt. It simply means that they are afraid, whether they were drinking and driving or it was simply an accident, many people are afraid of going to jail or possible lawsuits that may come from this.

And back to the choking scenario, if you are telling me that you believe a crowd of people would watch a person die so painfully in front of their very eyes and feel no remorse, you must seriously have lost faith in humanity. As I said before, simply calling for help in that situation would constitute assistance in some regard.

Yes, a part of humanity does spread hate whether it be because of racism, hatred, sadism, what have you. However, that simply means that this group of people has a different set of moral obligations that they live by. It does not mean that they have completely surrendered their right to a thought process and emotions to the government, it simply means that they live by a different code of standards. Whether these standards are right or wrong all depends on your interpretation of them.

Hurricane Sandy ravaged parts of the East Coast. I would know, I live there. This scenario is pretty much as extreme as you can get in the context of assisting others. We sacrifice some things to the government in the form of taxes and laws so that they can provide things back to the people such as defense, public services and order in an otherwise chaotic world. As you said, not all of our obligations are over-demanding. If you expect the common people to go on rescue missions, salvage debris from a major hurricane that made landfall, and protect every living soul from burglars rummaging through the rubble, you are flat-out wrong. Assisting in that way is simply out of reach for the common man, and that is why we sacrifice these things back to the government! So they can assist in these extreme situations! You simply cannot make the claim that because people cannot help in the most extreme situation, that there is no moral obligation to assist others. It is entirely up to the individual what level of assistance they can offer to others, whether that may be something as small as helping another person carry something to their car, or as large as assisting in the cleanup effort after a region was ravaged by a storm. It does not matter, every single person feels some sort of moral obligation to assist others in some form. There are some people that feel no remorse after not helping someone, but you cannot generalize this unfortunate mindset to the entire human population.

Representatives are elected by the people to carry their voice to the higher echelons of the government. They do not simply "decide" what is right and what is wrong in America, that is why we have the freedom to vote and there are term limits. If a representative/senator/official etc. makes decisions that do not appeal to the majority we as citizens have the power to elect another official, have legislation repealed or even have officials impeached. To compare the level of control the US government has over its people to countries like China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea is a farce. To make these claims when these regions are so clearly opposites on the political spectrum is completely absurd.

You are making the claim that because the government has some extent of control on legislation, that all moral obligation is conceded by the people back to the government. This is preposterous. These obligations have varying levels of commitment, and each and every person to some degree has some standards of morality that they live by. You simply cannot state that these standards are just forfeited to the power of government, it is completely illogical.

Think about this, at one point in time the Jewish people were being massacred by the millions by an insane dictator. In the not so distant past, it was legal to keep slaves, and the freedom to vote was not extended to blacks or women. Now it is being called into question whether homosexuals should have the right to marry. All of these occurrences in the past were believed to be right by a group of extremely close-minded people, and these groups believed that this was the way the world should be. Gradually, each and every one of these issues was solved by governments and the people that were under there control. This was due to these people feeling obligated to assist people being unfairly prosecuted for unjust reasons. Now we all look back at those times, and can't imagine these injustices being inflicted upon these groups of people. There is a sense of moral obligation from the people that reaches up to the government, because if the government discriminates in these ways the majority rise up to the occasion and defend themselves.

Whether the problem is monumentally large, or insignificantly small, there is always some sense of responsibility to help others in some fashion.

Debate Round No. 2


First I would like to start off with im sorry for the devistation that nature havs cause. But not too long ago, hurricane Katrina devistated my state of Texas. I know how it is. Thousand with no homes, thousand with no food, thousands with no hope. Our experiences arent so far apart from each other. But one thing we must both know is that the government was the first to respond. Our country was in need, help, what else can I say! You cannot say that say that the government hasnt played an extent role in our moral choises when you said it yourself, you have seen it first hand. Now you do keep comparing our moral obligations to the siplist of things. Helping someone to their car, holding an elevator, stopping to help someone pick up papers. These things do not even compare to a car wreck, murder, choking, hurricanes, ect. If you sit and read the constitution and look at the right of personhood, created by the social contract, you would see what I mean. The founding Fathers even mentioned the social contract to all of the people and states,To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law. It means that if we follow the laws set in place, our society WILL be more moral.
Past experiences of the country showd that if they didnt have laws, we would fall into a monarchy. We have elected representatives to give the voice of the people to other representatives. From there , they vote for the best moral choices for us Americans. Without the government, the devistation of Katrina would still be dramatically seen, New Jersey would have a increasing number of casualties, our world would be in a crisis. That is what laws are for. They ensure that everyone follows the social contract, choose moral choices, and fufill their moral obligation. If we do not follow these laws, well there are consequences. Simply not helping someone pick up paper, or helping with their bags means your immoral. Yes, origanally morality was defined by every individual. But because of consequentalism, We the people chose to give up our moral rights, to make our society a better place.
Now, like you said before, a person who is at an accident may experience fear, but that does not necissarily mean that wont do anything in their power to help. An untrained human can only do so much, until authorized personel arive(government officials). All Americans must follow the laws set in their society. in this case, he/she MUST render aid. If not, the punishments will be severe. Before a law can be passed, it must go through a series of stages. Representatives(that the people elect) must decide whether this law would be efficient to their moral country. It then must be passed by the President, then on to congress. Every detail must be put into consideration when dealing with such a huge law effecting a huge amount of people. If the majority rules, that must meant that more people belived that this law was going to benifit the United States. Fear was taken into consideration, for if it was not, it would make this law immoral itself. Though Americans may be in a state of shock, they (by majority rule) are still able to assist him/her. No obligation can arise if you are simply following a law that was made by a government. Im pretty sure if helping someone with their bags compared to a life or death situation, it would be created into a law, but sadly, it is not.
Now us as American demand much from our government. Justice, Equality, and Moral choices are the major contentions. If we had no demand for a moral community, then we wouldn't have argued for a law to set our moral standards. We wouldn't have argued with Britain for fair treatment. We wouldn't have fought for our moral rights through the government. Yes the 1492 the pilgrims sailed the ocean blue to escape religion persecution, but it became much more than that. The Mayflower compact was the first example of self-government, which led to multiple self-governments within the colonies. Finally we American decided we wanted fair moral treatment and started the American Revolution. We won our independence, with demands of a moral society. From that point on , from WW1,WW2, and now our reaction to September 11, we have fought to keep our government entact to ensure morality. Demanding human rights, demanding moral societies, demanding equality, we have demanded to follow the dream America had first seeked. And if you believe that we do not demand much from our morals, then you must research on United States history once again. We believed that having the government enfore these laws that it would be more sufficient,so we gave up our moral rights for the benifit of our society.. Why my friend, if you did not follow the laws today ensuring morality, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.
Individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist people in need. We have demanded that we have a moral society and laws, one which led to the "Fail to Render Aid Law." A little over 200 years ago, some men werent treated with equallity. Over the years, we the people change that, with representation in the government. By following the laws set for society, there is order. There is happiness. There is a moral country called the United Stated of America. how did we achieve this you may ask? We created a brand new government from scratch and set laws. If we didn't revolt, we would still be under British rule. We would still be listening to the parlement. We would still be living in an immoral community. These are facts! Ever since America, citizens have demanded for a moral society. Texas, won its indepenence from Mexico, and later was joined as the 28th state to join the Union. Its reason, a Moral Society. The people have given our moral obligations to the government to make a better and moral society for us. Other countries have followed. Though some forms of government are not strongly encourage, the people have to choos which moral community he/she wishes to live in. One is The United States of America. Which has ensured a moral community, as long as you follow their set of laws.
In conclusion, We Do Not Have A Moral Obligation to assist people in need for two main reasons.
1)We can't blame individuals who fail to assist AND
2)Obligation to assist is over-demanding
With the support of my core value of Social Contract. Which again states that the people simply give their moral obligtions to the government. From there they make our society a safer, more moral, and happier place to live in.
Supporting my core value is Morality. Every individual has their own set of moral standards. Some in which support our version of government. Others may support another. Either way, they give their moral standard to them with high hopes of a better future.
For my final word, i urge you to think about our everyday life and how moral our society is. This indeed is also my first debate on this website and hope to continue with this topic for a while. Please leave constructive critisisim in the comments. For my opponent, it has been a pleasure debating this formal topic with you, and wish you the best of luck in these hard times we are going through. Just know, the State of Texas has the Eastern Coast's back. And are doing everything they can to support the fight on the devestation.

It is because of these reason that i Negate today's resolution:That individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Thank you.


Thank you for your condolences, luckily no one I am close with was severely hurt or affected by the storm. And I offer my condolences to you, as the scale of Katrina dwarfs that of Sandy.

The government does indeed have a role in these large scale moral obligations I did not doubt that. I simply downplay the scale of things because your argument does in fact regard the individual. As a society we have sacrificed some rights to the government for them to make some moral decisions for us, but that is simply based on the voices of the majority. I am not against your philosophy on the government having say on some moral decisions, but the basis of the argument is individuals. Depending on the region, the governmen has varying degrees of clout in these matters. However, when you argue the fact that individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist others, you are making a completely generalized accusation on the entirety of the human race.

We still do not live in a perfectly moral world, but throughout history people that felt this obligation to help those who are unjustly punished have risen to the occasion and made a difference. People fought to end slavery, to give suffrage to all, and now are fighting to extend these rights to the gay community. It is because of people like this throughout history that we have moved closer and closer towards a morally just society.

To say that we sacrifice our character, the code that we live by, to the government is somewhat ludicrous. You have argued the point that we as citizens are simply not well-equipped enough to handle some great situations very well, and how we as citizens make sacrifices so the government has enough control to prevent these catastrophic events from tearing our society down to the ground. But for the individual, we all live by our own rules, our own obligations and make our own decisions according to our moral code. I appreciate the assistance the government and other organizations provides for us in these dire times, but I do not believe I have extended them access to my core values and allowed them to make these choices for us. I conclude with this, we as human beings are unique. So unique in fact that it is almost impossible to make a generalized statement that applies to all of our race. And this is why I believe that inside each and everyone of us lies a foundation that we live upon. A code that we live by, and are obligated to follow throughout the course of our lives. Whether we stray from that at times does not make us bad people, it simply means we have made mistakes. As humans, we all have slip-ups, but it does not rock the foundation we stand upon.

I thank you for this debate, I thoroughly enjoyed the topic and hope that we can have this again.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ax123man 6 years ago
I don't get it. We don't have to help people because the government will do that for us, but you are against such a nanny state government?
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
There's so much wrong with this case I don't even know where to start....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling goes to Pro because of quite a few mistakes on Con's side. Arguments goes to pro because Con was not able to rebut the contention that we do not surrender All moral decisions to the government. Sources go to Con because Pro's source wasn't immediately relevant to the case at hand, whereas Con's were.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job with both debaters. Arguments on both sides were great, however pro's seemed clearer. The spelling also must go to pro.
Vote Placed by LarryLemon1 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the con had better arguments and represented the side better then the pro though spelling must go to the pro
Vote Placed by Muted 6 years ago
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: An engrossing debate, thanks to both the debaters. Spelling must go to Pro. Con's challenge has bad spelling. Arguments will go to Con. This is because Pro uses anecdotes, which might convince someone softer hearted than me. Sources will go to Pro, both sides had one good reliable source, but Con had one other source which was neither reliable nor good. This, I realize, will tie the debate. Till another voter, then.