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

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and will now state my own case. Morality has many definitions—many forms—and many different societies that live by it, but the morals that each society lives by cannot be exactly the same. To look out for the good of a society, a person has to look out for oneself as instinct dictates lest they risk their own survival. This doesn’t mean that the helping of others is wrong but that to help others we must put ourselves first.Before I begin, I would like to define a few recurring terms that will appear throughout. Firstly, morality being conformity to ideals of right human conduct, and obligation being something one is bound to do (Merriam-Webster). Thus, combining these two terms, moral obligation would become a belief or act one fulfills to conform to ideals of right human conduct. Thirdly, society is defined as a community, nation, or a broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests (Merriam-Webster). Altruism is behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.For the following reason, I negate the resolution: a society where individuals conform to a certain morality and all maintain the same moral obligations will not lead to rationality, and a rational society is what humans wish to achieve. This leads to the value, which is self-preservation. When living with the goal of self-preservation, society is more rational. My first contention is that morality varies from person to person, thus a person’s ideas on what their moral obligation might be is different from another person’s. Morality, as stated above, is the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. However, right human conduct is subjective and can be influenced by one’s society. A person who lives in the Midwest might have far different morals than a person who lives in the Middle East. Secondly, saying individuals are morally obligated to assist those in need is a broad, inclusive statement. A person cannot help everyone in need let alone everyone they witness in a state of need, and if they were to help everyone they came into contact with that was in need of assistance it would not be healthy for the one giving. If too many people acted as if they were obligated to help whoever they could that was in need then those who gave would be suffering in the place of those who had needed assistance prior or alongside them. In a certain case, an altruistic person—whose behavior could be potentially harmful as stated by the definition prior to the contentions—who is living by the resolution which obligates them to assist those in need may end up being the person in need and, in order to assist oneself, have to stop assisting others out of obligation to oneself, which is human instinct—putting oneself above others. Pertaining to this, those who aren’t giving by nature but rather cynical will have more mental strain put on them than those who are more trusting and willing to give if they are forced to assist those in need.Extending on my second contention, the resolution is only possible if one manipulates it so . If one were to manipulate the resolution to say: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need when feasible, then fulfilling the resolution would be possible. Seeing as the resolution itself doesn't extend and state so, it would be impossible for one to fulfill the resolution, making the resolution itself incorrect.As my third contention, I will point out that some moral obligations could be considered uncivil and immoral to people excluded or even included in the society where that moral system is practiced. The KKK was morally obligated to assist their fellow members by seeking out African Americans and exterminating them, adding to my first point that moral obligation is subjective. During World War II in Germany, the Nazis had their moral ideals given to them by Hitler, who said they were obligated to hunt down the Jews and force them into concentration camps. This was to assist their country which would supposedly be better off without the Jews. Basically, members of the KKK and Nazi Germany thought they were assisting others when they killed the African Americans or placed Jews in concentration camps. That was their moral obligation. Al-Qaeda requires that all infidels be killed because it is their obligation to annihilate them for their God. With this idea in mind, one will think that conforming to the moral ideals of a society and fulfilling said obligations is not always a good thing. Lastly, if a person is forced to assist others, they are not doing so out of an obligation to morality but rather an obligation to something or someone else, defeating the morality in their obligation. Thus, they are obligated to assist others, but it is not their morals that make them obligated so. It is like a school having a canned food drive where if the whole class brings in enough cans they will all get treats. Instead of bringing in cans out of an obligation to morality, a child will bring in cans out of obligation to the class because the child does not wish to let his or her classmates down and also obligation to the child’s own person, as the child does not want to miss out on the opportunity for treats.In summary, my case has stated that morality itself is subjective, that it is not possible to help everyone in need, and that a person’s first obligation—according to human nature and instinct—is to oneself. I also stated that some societies have moral obligations that might seem inhumane to us and that we would not want them to fulfill and that if someone is forced to assist others, it is not out of moral obligation. Now, I will attack my opponent's case.Firstly, my opponent states his core belief as altruism, unselfish concern for the welfare of others/selflessness, but defined in my own case it could be potentially harmful to the one who is assisting. As stated in my second point, the resolution makes itself impossible to fulfill. It doesn't have those two words that would make it correct: when feasible. Because of this, the resolution itself is impossible. If one were to be truly altruistic, they would die from lack of necessities due to giving it away, which also negates the resolution. You have no obligations when you are dead.My opponent also places value in human dignity, which is quite similar to altruism in the way it is typically used, thus negated by the argument I stated for altruism.The first contention was more an order than proof that one is morally obligated to do something: treat others as you would like to be treated. However, saying this does not prove why I have to help people or that I even have to. My opponent asks if I would like other people to help me if I were in a deprived state. Yes, I would, however, there is no way to obligate them to assist me.In my opponent's second contention, he states that our brains are wired so that we assist others. If so, then it would not at all be a moral obligation that binds us but a biological one, also disproving the resolution. For the final argument, my opponent references the bystander effect. Though it may seem bad, the typical question to be asked is, 'So what?' I want to know how this bystander effect obligates me to help a person. If nothing is getting done, it proves that people don't have a moral obligation, because if they did they'd be helping prevent the bystander effect, but they aren't. My third point also disproves my opponents point, as Germans had a moral obligation to turn in the Jews which was a horrible moral obligation but some of them didn't. If they didn't actually fulfill the moral obligation, then there was no moral obligation to begin with.