Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

Thanks to bsh1 (who shall be referred to as "Pro" from here on out), for putting up his opening arguments so quickly!I apologize for not being able to do the same.Note: I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate on this, so my arguments here don't necessarily represent my personal views.Like Pro, I will be presenting several contentions functioning independently of each other in order to negate the resolution, so any contradictions between contentions do not affect the validity of my argument as a whole. C1) Moral NihilismMoral nihilism is the idea that morality does not truly exist; that no action can truly be called "moral" or "immoral" [1]. It is based on the perspective that there is nothing special about humans in relation to the rest of the inanimate universe, so causing a human to feel pleasure or pain ultimately means nothing. From the nihilistic perspective, human beings are simply inanimate arrangements of atoms, differing from everything else in the universe only in complexity. "Consciousness" is merely an illusion created by electrochemical reactions between the cells in the brain; pain and pleasure are nothing more than certain parts of the brain undergoing those electrochemical reactions upon being stimulated by external conditions [2]. Thus, causing pain or pleasure is simply causing an electrochemical reaction; there is no real significance in doing so. For the most part, morality, especially Utilitarian morality, is based on the amounts of pain and/or pleasure caused by actions, so if pain and pleasure are simply meaningless electrochemical reactions, then morality as whole is meaningless as well; it is an artificial construct with no basis in reality. If morality doesn't exist in reality, then obviously the moral obligation to assist those in need cannot exist either.The resolution is negated from the viewpoint of Moral Nihilism. C2) Ethical EgoismEthical egoism is the concept that self-interest should be the most important factor in any moral decision, since ultimately, a human can only feel his/her own pain/pleasure and not anyone else's [3]. Following that logic, the most moral choice is the one which is best for the self (i.e. creating the greatest personal benefit at the least personal expense).Depending on the situation, helping someone in need may or may not result in greater benefit than cost. However, the resolution Pro is supporting is "individuals ought to help those in need", which implies that there is always a moral obligation to assist people in need. Thus, it is only necessary to point out one such situation in which the costs outweigh the benefits in order to negate the resolution, as far as the ethical egoistic interpretation of morality is concerned. Consider the simple example of running an errand for a friend; the greatest benefit that can realistically result from doing so is gratitude on the part of the friend and perhaps a personal sense of accomplishment, whereas the minimal cost of such an action it is a lot of time and energy that could have easily been spent doing something more productive for the self.Consider the classic example of taking a bullet for a friend; again, the greatest benefit that can realistically result from doing so is gratitude on the part of the friend and perhaps a personal sense of accomplishment (on a higher level than in the previous example, of course), whereas the minimal cost of such an action is extreme pain for an extended period of time.The point of these examples is to show that the personal costs of helping someone in need can be greater than the personal benefits of doing so, thus negating the resolution from the view point of Ethical Egoism.C3) Reduction of SufferingFor the purposes of this contention, I am going to synonomize "helping those in need" with "reducing suffering", since helping someone in need is ultimately an attempt at reducing their suffering.I will argue that reducing someone's suffering is not always beneficial to themTo affirm that statement, I will utilize Nietzsche's argument that suffering facilitates a person's growth by serving as an obstacle to them, forcing them to grow stronger to overcome it [5]. For example, if a kid is being bullied, it would seem upon first sight that the action which would most benefit the kid would be for an adult to apprehend the bully and put a stop to it. However, the kid does not gain anything from that other than temporary relief from being bullied. Later in life, he will just be bullied again in a different setting, back to where he started, with no knowledge of how to deal with it. However, if the kid were left to his own devices during his initial encounter with bullying, there is a high probability that he would find his own way to overcome it, and later in life he would be equipped with the knowledge and experience necessary to deal with bullying. Suffering often serves as a means for self-improvement and character-building, so to reduce suffering in those situations is to lose an opportunity for betterment. In conclusion, reducing suffering can have negative effects. And since "reducing suffering" is synonomous with "helping those in need", it logically follows that helping those in need can sometimes have negative effects. Having negative effects is not morally desirable; thus, helping those in need is sometimes not morally desirable.The resolution has been negated; there are plenty of situations in which it is not morally desirable to help those in need due to the potentially positive effects of non-lethal suffering.CONCLUSIONSI have built three cases negating the resolution, each functioning independently of the other (i.e. contradictions are to be expected):1) Morality does not exist; thus, there is no moral obligation to help those in need.2) Using self-interest as a moral standard, there are many situations in which helping out those in need would not be morally desirable.3) Reducing suffering by assisting those in need is not always beneficial to them.Any one of these contentions negate the resolution, so my opponent must refute all three of them in order to show that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof.I hand the debate back over to my opponent.Good luck, Pro!SOURCES[1] http://home.sandiego.edu... [2] http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...[3] http://www.effective-mind-control.com...[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] http://www.georgewrisley.com...