The Rich Have a Moral Obligation to Donate to the Poor - *Fall Tier Tournament - Round 1*

As always, it is a pleasure to debate an opponent of Wylted's calibre.In the first round or active debate we have established a surprising amount of common ground. We have agreed that morality is that which is in accordance with our nature. Thus the debate has narrowed to what really is true human nature. My contention was and continues to be that those actions and philosophies that are in keeping with our true nature (and thus moral) will provide the greatest outcomes for the species.Rebuttals1. ValueWe are generally in agreement with this section, without life nothing has an inherent value per se. The only issue that may occur with this section is where Con notes that value is subjective to our interpretation and usage of the objects. In general it is subjective, but not always, but I digress and will not further this topic.2. Pain & PleasurePleasure and pain are related to natural goods and evils. However, pleasure and pain do not fully describe moral goods and moral evils as we humans do not operate only by instinct. This concept is easily demonstrated.Food tastes good because eating is a natural good to the body as it encourages the necessary consumption of nutrients. Sweets and fats can be particularly tasty, however an excess of these type foods can be very harmful to humans in terms of cavities, diabetes and heart disease.Conversely pain warns us of things that are natural evils to the body. Pain warns us of damage to the body in order to keep us healthy and able. Yet some of the most physically fit people endure pain and discomfort to push their body to an even healthier state. If one were to use pain as the sole guide to that which is morally evil, you would actually hamper a natural good to the body.Thus, while the human body and mind are naturally attracted to pleasure and adverse to pain, these are inadequate guidelines to morality. They establish a natural guide, but one that must be further built upon.3. Morals & Other Moral theoriesCon goes on to state that morality maximizes the amount of pleasure and minimizes the pain in the individual's life. He qualifies this statement by noting that since we are humans we do not act on compulsion alone, but on maximizing personal pleasure.Now this seems good and reasonable at first, however there are several issues with it. When we discuss morals, only a small part of moral discourse is on the self, but rather morals are generally more focused on interpersonal dynamics and actions. For a sociopath like Charles Manson, he took great pleasure in actions the remainder of us would generally find abhorrent. Does that make those actions morally acceptable? No? Why?This is because those actions are not in keeping with our humanity. A fundamental attribute of humanity is our empathy for one another. Our ability to understand the needs and emotions of others and to act on those needs not out of self-interest, but solely out of care for the other. Empathy is what makes us human it gives us our conscience. Any "moral" system that focuses on self-pleasure is inherently at odds with our human nature as it denies a crucial element of being human.Now Con has argued that if that gives you pleasure then do it, but if not - don't. The problem is that this attitude does not mesh with the result of empathy: love. Now what is love (please don't start singing Haddaway here)? Can love make you feel like a Disney movie where you want to dance from cloud to cloud with little birdies throwing confetti and streamers while fireworks go off in the background? On occasion, but quite often that is mere infatuation. Love (agape) is ultimately an act of the will to sacrifice for the good of the other. Sacrifice is ultimately the opposite of pleasure. It is an act of foregoing that which would give us pleasure for a greater good - in this case the good of another.While something like friendship starts as a means of doing pleasurable things with each other, it is ultimately an empty relationship if it does not develop to a deeper level where it becomes something where the friends would sacrifice for each other.Con asked, "Geogeer, why do you want to exchange gifts with each other instead of us just each buying what we want?" If the gift giving at Christmas was simply about the stuff, then Con would be right. But you know what? It isn't really about the item you receive at all. It is about what the item represents. The gift represents an expression of the love the other person has for me, and their desire to show me that love through giving. This is why I refuse to ever give out a list of things that I want. The gifts aren't about what I want, they are about the relationship that we share. And in doing so, the other person shares a unique little expression of themselves in what they give!Con is correct about one thing. Growing up people generally accept what they have been taught. However, all good parents pass on the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of living to their children. Life is hard and it requires one to be able to stand on their own - a skill that good parents will foster in their children. And because life is hard, people also recognize the need to support others in their time of need as our civilization is not merely a collection of individuals, but a society of interdependence. This too is a knowledge passed on from parents to children. Additional ArgumentsI argue that Con's assertion that pleasure is the only purpose in life, is not only wrong, but ultimately immoral. Let's assume that we could hook up electrodes to someone's brain at the earliest ages and we could continually activate the pleasure centres of their brain for their entire existence while blocking out the pain receptors. In this manner we could guarantee that they experienced nothing, but continual pleasure for their entire lives without ever experiencing pain. Would this truly be the perfect life? I would argue that it is the exact opposite - it would be the most wasted life ever. It would be a completely inward focused life that was never shared, never loved and never given in love. A life without sacrifice for others is ultimately worthless because it removes that which we desire most - love.It is the strange dichotomy of being human. We desire pleasure, but we improve both individually and socially through self-sacrifice. It reminds me of a poem by Robert Browning [6]:I walked a mile with Pleasure;She chatted all the way;But left me none the wiserFor all she had to say.I walked a mile with Sorrow;And ne’er a word said she;But, oh! The things I learned from her,When Sorrow walked with me.Personal GainAdditionally, I noted in the previous round that if our actions are in keeping with the natural law governing our species they should provide benefits to the individual and the species as a whole. People who give to charity in relation to those who don't are [7]:• 43% more likely to say they are very happy• 1/5th as likely to say they are not happy at allAdditionally $1 given to charity was associated with $4.35 extra income. And nationally a 1% increase in charitable donations increased the GDP in the US by roughly $36 billion.These are in addition to the societal improvements in law and government noted in the previous round.HistoryI am going to return again to history to reinforce my point. However, this will focus on a few quotes from historical figures:I have been everything, and everything is nothing. Emperor Severus - 211 ADHere is a man who was the most powerful man alive, controlled the Roman Empire, expanded its boarders, did everything that ambition noted would bring pleasure. And at the end of his life is not filled with joy for the pleasures experienced, but with emptiness.Additionally, people of different religions can agree on the need to care for the poor.A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. - Mahatma Ghandi [8]A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members... - Pope John Paul II [8]These are truths that cross boarders and religions. If a nation is so judged, so is the individual because the individuals make up the nation. A nation with no care for its weakest members will be judged as evil and immoral. Likewise, so judged will be an individual who does not help his fellow man in their need.ConclusionWhile the issues of the debate have been primarily about pleasure/selfishness vs. suffering/love these are just the broader context to discuss the topic of debate. Con has argued that adherence to pleasure is the only means of remaining moral. However, I believe that I have clearly shown that this does not properly account for human nature which includes empathy and love - both of which require self-sacrifice to be realized. Thus human morality extends beyond mere pleasure into something greater.As such, in order to adhere to our true nature, it is a moral obligation for the rich (as well as the rest of us) to donate to the poor. It is only by giving of ourselves in a selfless love (agape) that we are able to transcend mere pleasure and achieve true joy.I now offer the floor (monitor) to Wylted.References[6] http://www.goodreads.com...[7] http://www.heritage.org...[8] http://askville.amazon.com...