Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

Thanks to Pro for his great counter-rebuttals!Now it's time for me to go back and address Pro's rebuttals... O_oLike my arguments and rebuttals, all my counter-rebuttals function independently of each other.C1) Moral NihilismFirst of all, apologies for any confusion with definitions; I was attempting to paraphrase and apparently didn't do a very good job of it. For the sake of simplicity I will go with Pro's definition: the view that there is no right or wrong.R1: TopicalityPro claims that the wordings of the resolution demand that the existence of morality be assumed for the purposes of this debate, thus invalidating Nihilism as a contention.However, notice that nowhere in Round 1 does it explicitly state that. The only place that morality is even mentioned is in the definition of "ought" with the phrase "morally desirable".This situation is akin to accepting the debate "Dogs make more desirable pets than Cats", and using the argument that there is no objective standard to determine which is more desirable. Such an argument is perfectly fair, and does, indeed, negate the resolution.In the same way, the contention of Moral Nihilism serves to negate the resolution by stating that there is no objective standard by which one can judge moral desirability.Moral nihilism is definitely topical to the resolution at hand.R2 & R3: Morality's ExistencePro claims that morality does exist in the form of personal judgments and as a social construct. However, this does not refute Nihilism because Nihilism does not deny that morality exists in those forms. Rather, it maintains that personal judgments and social constructs have no basis in reality, being based on the illusion that humans are special in relation to the rest of the inanimate universe.R4 & R5: PhysiologyPro claims that I have baseless assertions in my argument for Moral Nihilism such as “electrochemical and neurochemical reactions lack significance” and “human's complexity is not grounds for morality”.This is nothing more than an attempt at shifting BOP by Pro.I have already shown pain and pleasure to be inanimate electrochemical reactions, just like all the other electrochemical reactions in the Universe. It is PRO’s job, now, to show why the electrochemical reactions in the brain hold any more significance than all those other electrochemical reactions.I have already shown humans to be complex arrangements of atoms, which are the building blocks of every other object in the universe, as wel. It is PRO’s job, now, to show why the inanimate arrangements of atoms known as “humans” are more significant than any other inanimate arrangement of atoms in the universe.Pro has not rebutted this contention at all!Pro then states 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”. However, according to Moral Nihilism, the whole concept of “we, as people” is an illusion in itself, being based on the misconception that humans are conscious beings, different from the rest of the universe.Pro then goes on to compare morality to the laws of mathematics, stating that math is an objective concept which we as humans have been able to grasp by use of the cognitive faculties we have evolved, and that morality is much the same.However, that is a false comparison; math is objective, whereas morality is not. Math is universally uniform, whereas, just within this debate, we have covered so many different interpretations of morality! Morality is completely subjective, and thus cannot be compared to math. It is much more likely that morality is a PRODUCT of our cognitive faculties, rather than an objective concept which our cognitive faculties have evolved to grasp.C2) Ethical EgoismR1: Psychological EgoismPro assumes that Ethical Egoism being true relies on strong Psychological Egoism being true, and goes about trying to disprove strong Psychological Egoism. However, Ethical Egoism does not at all rely on strong Psychological Egoism being true; it is dependent on weak Psychological Egoism being true. Weak Psychological Egoism holds that humans are capable of empathizing with others, but that their default nature is animal-like selfishness, with the majority of their actions being motivated mainly by self-interest. This theory is well supported, both by evolutionary biology (i.e. we evolved from animals and continue to retain some animal-like instincts) and by the innumerable instances recorded throughout history, from ancient times to the present, showing the primitive bestiality of human nature in desperate situations where the social norms that normally bind us break down (e.g. wars, genocide, etc.).And anyways, another important factor in proving the truth of Ethical Egoism is the observation that since we can ultimately only feel our own pain and pleasure, actions which maximize our own pleasure and minimize our own suffering are the most moral.R2: Egoism and AltruismPro argues the following: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-interestThe flaw in this rebuttal is the second premise. Helping people does not necessarily create a network of allies for the egoist; there are many situations in which the person in need doesn’t have anything to give back once he/she has been helped, other than gratitude, of course. This is a baseless assertion on Pro’s part. Pro must show that helping those in need often creates a network of allies.R3: Cost/Benefit AnalysisPro argues that according to ethical egoism, impulsive actions deriving immediate pleasure would be more morally desirable than actions allowing for long-term benefits, thus refuting the concept of a cost/benefit analysis deciding what is more morally desirable. This is not at all true; long-term benefits can be much more rewarding than the benefits obtained from short-term impulsive actions, and thus more moral according to Ethical Egoism. And in the cases that the short-term benefits are more rewarding, the cost/benefit analysis would be capable of revealing so. R4: BOPPro accuses me of “pigeon-holing” him. I apologize if I have inadvertently implied that Pro has more burden of proof than he really has. I have simply provided some very common examples in which helping those in need would not be morally desirable (according to ethical egoism) in order to show that there is probably a substantial number of situations like that.C3) Reduction of SufferingR1: Synonymizing Pro objects to my synonymizing of the terms “reduction of suffering” and “helping those in need” on the grounds that suffering implies being severely in need. However, that is a flawed definition of "suffering". According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, suffering merely means to experience something unpleasant (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).Pro’s objection has been refuted. It is, indeed, appropriate to synonymize “helping those in need” with “the reduction of suffering”.R2: OutcomesPro objects to my example, saying that the outcomes which I have predicted are selected just to build up my argument. However, the alternative outcomes which Pro has presented are quite faulty themselves, as I will show.“By interceding, you could intimidate the bully, leading to them backing off for good.”But that only scares off ONE bully. Mean people are encountered in every stage of life, and by taking care of the problem for the kid, the adult has simply taken away an opportunity for the kid to learn how to defend himself in future encounters with that type of person.“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.”That really doesn’t make any sense… if anything, the fat kid will feel bad about himself because he was unable to take care of the problem himself. Adult intervention merely proves to the kid that he is defenseless.The outcomes which I presented in the initial presentation of the scenario are the most likely ones to occur. R3: Devolvement into AltruismPro argues the following:P1: Person X suffering is good for Person XP2: Person Y allows Person X to sufferP3: Person Y helps Person XThis syllogism is flawed. By allowing Person X to suffer, Person Y is not actively helping him. Going back to an earlier theme, there is a substantive difference between commission and omission. There is a big difference between actively helping someone (a beneficial act of commission) and ignoring someone’s suffering, forcing them to help themselves and inadvertently causing them benefit (a beneficial act of omission). There is a clear disparity in intention, committment, and the effort put into it.One is helping some one in need; the other is forcing someone in need to help themself.R4: Utility-basedPro states that since this argument is pretty much a pre-emptive rebuttal against a Utilitarian argument, it does not hold any value if he has not used a Utilitarian argument to affirm the resolution.However, this greatly confuses me, as Pro DID use an argument from Utilitarianism to affirm the resolution, so, in effect, he just called attention to the fact that one of my opening contentions refutes one of his own opening contentions... (????)Anyways, that wraps up my counter-rebuttals.I wish both of us good luck for the final round of the debate!