Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

I thank Con, and move on to a defence of my case, followed by an analysis of the negative case. My opponent has criticized my value of altruism. I feel that in order to effectively present my case, I must explain some of the workings within such an ethical system. Altruism is about acting for the good of others, but to say that it implies that one should not help oneself would be a wildly inaccurate statement. Altruism dictates that the needs of everyone else are more important than the needs of the individual, not that one should forget about them self. For example, if eating helps me live, and living allows me to help people, I can eat. It's in the interest of others, but it sill does me good. Another example, would be if I was volunteering to help others, and the oxytocin levels increased as a direct result; more people than just myself would be in a better place, but I would be included in that. In order to prove why ethical egoism is flawed, I will present the following scenario: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On a flight my opponent took the other day, he noticed the policy of caring for one's own oxygen before caring for other people's oxygen. This is because they want as many people as possible to be safe, and that's impossible if the people who are helping pass out. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First of all, Altruism is about taking actions to ensure the well being of others. Obviously, altruism is better in this scenario. The altruistic response is to help yourself so that others may be helped. Egocentric ethics dictate that you help yourself, but then helping others it optional. With ethical egotism, less people will be safe. My opponent then delivers a faulty case against utilitarianism. 1. The ends do indeed justify the means, but the ends need to be evaluated in a much more fair manner than you suggested. Stalin may have killed millions in an attempt to create a utopia, but the ends involved millions of people to be dead and no utopia. According to utilitarianism, those ends are extremely insufficient for such means. 2. If slavery ultimately made the lives of enough people better, it would be justified. 3. The methods we use for the results are irrelevant. If we figured out that the greatest good came from using egoism, that's what would be best. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My contention stands, and it stands for good reason. I really hate to respond to such a long quote with such a simple reply, but if a failed attempt at helping hurts, it cannot be considered a fulfilment of the moral obligation to assist. If the best course of action to take in helping those in need is to ignore their issues, that's what altruism and utilitarianism dictate we do. The best way to assist people is to make everything as good as possible. If allowing people to die will save more people in need, then that is the altruistic way. Ethical Egoism could easily permit the "allowing people to die" without making way for the "saving more people in need". Ethical Egoism is clearly not as valid a system of ethics as altruism is. The reason that the priority is in other's needs, is simply because there are more of them to serve than egos. If given the choice between saving a million people and one person, altruism suggests the million get saved, whereas egoism only accounts for the one. The same goes for a billion-to-one ratios, trillion-to-one ratios, quadrillion-to-one ratios, all the way up to infinity-to-one ratios. Altruism merely dictates that more people have better lives. Ethical Egoism dictates that the self is somehow more important than any number of other people. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will now address my opponent's case. The issue here relies entirely in the Ethical Egoism. My opponent states that every human being has value, but Ethical Egoism only accounts for the value of one person. The best course of action in every scenario is the one that satisfies one person's desires. My opponent says that too many moral obligations stifle creativity, but look at the following example: If given the choice between an individual gaining a creative side and never using it, and the rest of society gaining a flourishing and beautiful culture, Ethical Egoism suggests that the first option is a better option than the latter. A better society has no place in an Egoist's obligations. If a better society is truly what Ethical Egoism is attempting to bring about, then it is simply choosing a very misguided method of utilitarianism. If a great society is better than a contented individual, then Egoism is invalid. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I apologize for my forfeit of the previous round. Please deduct conduct points in your vote. I was moving and had minimal time to respond. I would also like to thank my understanding and very worthy debater. This has been an entertaining debate. In the end, please consider my argument for its superior contentions and validity. I urge the floor to side with Pro.