Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

I thank Romanii for a great debate thus far! At this time, I will rebut Con's constructive case.CONTENTION ONE: Moral NihilismCon defines moral nihilism as indicating that "morality does not truly exist." He cites this definition as coming from his sandiego.edu source. I was concerned, chiefly, with what Con meant by "truly existing," insofar as there may be social constructs for what is moral without there being an objective or universal morality. I did a Control + F search for the word "nihilism" and was unable to locate that definition in the given source, and so I would like to clarify that ethical or moral nihilism can be defined as "the view that there is no right or wrong. There is no good or bad." [1] Now that a clearer definition has been provided, we can proceed to the rebuttals.R1: Con's argument is non-topical.The resolution, as defined in round one, assumes that morality exists, and asks the debaters to discuss, under that assumption, whether or not it is morally desirable to help those in need. By rejecting the idea that morality exists, Con has stepped outside of the ground the topic provided, and is thus making an argument not topical to the resolution. This is a prima facie reason to reject Con's first contention.R2: Desires/Values Imply "Should," which rejects nihilism"One’s having any preferences, desires, or values, implies that one should (or should not) do actions or should(or should not) have certain attitudes, and also that it is better for that person to do or avoid actions, and so on. Butthe nihilist cannot use the words 'should' or 'better' in the context of human life...When one uses the word should, it automatically implies or ascribes a value to the action that should be performed...Why does that matter, unless we refer to the person’s desire to live, and why does living matter, without reference to desires?" [2] In other words, our own personal values give us insight into what is the right thing to do. For example, if it my personal opinion or value that I should not harm others, I am fundamentally making a decision about what is right or wrong of me to do--thus, implying a moral judgment.R3: Social Constructs as Morality In round two, I defined "moral" as "relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior." If we acknowledge that societies, through laws, customs, and discourse have made decisions about what members of that society should or should not do and about what is right or wrong, then we must also concede that societies have imposed a sort of morality on their members. As a denizen of the society that is the United States, I know that it is wrong to murder someone. Society has come to this collective judgment, and enforces those rules. In this way, society has crafted principles of right and wrong behavior; i.e. it has created a morality. Thus, morality does exist.R4: Con's Warrantless ClaimsCon posits that "causing pain or pleasure is simply causing an electrochemical reaction; there is no real significance in doing so." There are two issues we can take with this line of reasoning: (1) Con never explains why these electrochemical and neurochemical reactions lack significance, and (2) Con assumes that human's complexity (our only supposed difference from the rest of the world) is not grounds for morality, but again, there is no substantive explanation as to why this is so.Really, I am just pointing out that there is no warrant to Con's assertions. Frankly, we can make the claim that while pleasure and pain arise from biological processes, that these sensations still give rise to a sense of what we, as people, desire and do not desire. Our desires then evolve into a concept of right and wrong (e.g. utility), and have thus led to the creation of morality.R5: Objections to Con's Physiological Arguments"All of our cognitive faculties seem to be the product of natural selection; that is, they deliver the sorts of seemings that they do because those seemings were advantageous for survival. This includes the faculties of sight, hearing, taste, etc., and other faculties such as intellectual and conceptual faculties. But, most of us take THESE faculties to be reliable. When I visually intuit that there is a table in the room, I take this intuition to be an indicator that there IS a table in the room. Likewise, when I mathematically intuit that 2+2=4, I take this intuition to be an indicator that 2+2 DOES equal 4. The mere fact that THESE cognitive faculties are evolutionarily derived does not seem to render them unreliable. Are ethical intuitions somehow different?" [1]Finally, Con makes some point about how most moral systems are based on Utility. I would argue that this is patently false. We only need to look to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Rawls, etc. to see that this comment is imprecise.CONTENTION TWO: Ethical EgoismR1: Psychological Egoism FalseEthical egoism assumes that people are exclusively self-interested actors, and so morality should reflect this point of view. Therefore, if people are not psychologically egoistic, then they should not be ethically egoistic. If we have moral impulses other than self-interest, then clearly, ethical egoism leaves room for altruistic feeling. This would be an internal contradiction. Simply cross-apply Levinas here; his arguments show that psychological egoism is largely false. We can also look to mirror neurons as well for more evidence of this. "[B]ecause mirror neurons activate when we witness other people's actions and emotions, they may play an important role in feelings of empathy." [3]R2: Egoism Collapses into AltruismLet's start with the basic flow of logic for this claim: P1: The egoist seeks to maximize long-term self-interestP2: Helping people in need creates a network of allies for the egoistP3: Helping people is in the egoist's self-interest Thus, egoism oftentimes requires that one render assistance to those in need. Therefore: P1: The egoist should help those in needP2: The egoist's obligation is a moral oneP3: The egoist is morally obligated to help those in need. Voila! Ethical egoism oftentimes collapses into altruism. Turn Con's entire argument; it affirms rather than negates the resolution.P3: Egoism falsely assumes self-interest is a cost-benefit gameWe may have, for example, a predisposition towards vanity, fame, or vengeance that transcends any benefit to the agent—thus self-interest is not about benefitting oneself, as the egoist will claim, but more about placating our base whims and desires, fostering in us a sense of evil or superiority that could come back to hurt one later and that serve no real purpose. [4]P4: BOPCon attempts to pigeonhole me by asserting that I must show that in every conceivable instance there is a moral obligation to help those in need. There are some issues with this:1. The word "ought" connotes moral desirability, not obligation.2. The resolution does not say that individuals must "always" help those in need. Because the resolution does not make an "always" claim, I do not have to defend such a claim. Merely, I must show the resolution to be true on balance.But, even if you do buy Con's interpretation, we can turn this against him. In round one, I stated that the BOP of Con was to show that "help ought not to be rendered." Since this is the direct converse of my BOP, Con must show that there is NEVER an obligation to help those in need. Since I think he would fine this reversal rather inconvenient, I urge him to agree that the BOP for both of us is merely "on balance."CONTENTION THREE: Reduction of SufferingR1: False AnalogySuffering implies being severely in need. If, for example, I am struggling to reach a pot on the highest shelf of the kitchen counter, I am not suffering. I am merely inconvenienced, but I am still in need of help. Consequently, equating "helping those in need" with "reducing suffering" is a false analogy.R2: False ConclusionsMy opponent is assuming that by helping the fat kid you necessarily lead to him being unable to stand up for himself in the future. There are several other likely possibilities. By interceding, you could intimidate the bully, leading to them backing off for good. By intervening you could show the fat kid that he has some intrinsic value worth standing up for; this self-image affirming action may boost his own confidence levels, enabling him to stand up to the next person who bullies him. Con is just drawing false conclusions to bolster his own argument here. He is discounting other possibilities (confirmation bias...sort of.)R3: Con's argument devolves into AltruismIt's tough love: P1: Person X is sufferingP2: Letting Person X suffer will develop their characterP3: It helps Person X to let them suffer Therefore: P1: Person X suffering is good for Person XP2: Person Y allows Person X to sufferP3: Person Y helps Person X Voila! Person Y is actually helping someone in need. Turn Con's argument on him; it affirms, rather than negates, this topic.R4: Utility-FocusedPlease note that this portion of Con's case is largely a preemptive argument against utility. If you use a non-utilitarian argument to affirm the topic, than this cannot be used to negate that argument.SOURCES1 - http://rintintin.colorado.edu...2 - http://www.mc.maricopa.edu...3 - http://www.dnalc.org...4 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...Thanks once again to Romanii! This is turning out to be a fantastic debate :)