Rich vs. Poor

For this round I"ll present my argument and then I"ll address my opponent"s remarks. PRO"S STANCE OBSERVATION: The Pro"s burden, as stated in round one, will be to illustrate that one or more acts of charity is morally obligated by the very rich to the very poor. Burden of proof is shared. The CORE PREMISE of my arguments can best be summed up by Prof. Peter Singer, when he states: "the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. MY ARGUMENTS: Contention One: The income gap is bad. Prof. Mark Sandel contends, "Too great a gap between rich and poor undermines the solidarity that democratic citizenship requires. Here"s how: As inequality deepens, rich and poor live increasingly separate lives. The affluent send their children to private schools (or to public schools in wealthy suburbs), leaving urban public schools to the children of families who have no alternative. A similar trend leads to the secession by the privileged from other public institutions and facilities. 43 Private health clubs replace municipal recreation centers and swimming pools. Upscale residential communities hire private security guards and rely less on public transportation. And so on. The affluent secede from public places and services, leaving them to those who can"t afford anything else. This has two bad effects, one fiscal, the other civic. First, public services deteriorate, as those who no longer use those services become less willing to support them with their taxes. Second, public institutions such as schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers cease to be places where citizens from different walks of life encounter one another. Institutions that once gathered people together and served as informal schools of civic virtue become few and far between. The hollowing out of the public realm makes it difficult An earlier generation made a massive investment in the federal highway program, which gave Americans unprecedented individual mobility and freedom, but also contributed to the reliance on the private automobile, suburban sprawl, environmental degradation, and living patterns corrosive to community. This generation could commit itself to an equally consequential investment in an infrastructure for civic renewal: public schools to which rich and poor alike would want to send their children; public transportation systems reliable enough to attract upscale commuters; and public health clinics, playgrounds, parks, recreation centers, libraries, and museums that would, ideally at least, draw people out of their gated communities and into the common spaces of shared democratic citizenship." Contention Two: Inequalities deserve redress. As John Rawls argues, "we may observe that the difference principle gives some weight to the considerations singled out by the principle of redress. This is the principle that undeserved inequlities call for redress; and since inequalities of birth and natural endowment are undeserved, these inequalities are to be somehow compensated for. Thus the principle holds that in order to treat all persons equally, to provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality. In pursuit of this principle greater resources might be spent on the education of the less rather than the more intelligent, at least over a certain time of life, say the earlier years of school." He goes on to posit: "The precept which seems intuitively to come closest to rewarding moral dessert is that of distribution according to effort. Once again, however, it seems clear that the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him. The better endowed are more likely, other things equal, to strive conscientiously, and there seems to be no way to discount for their greater good fortune. The idea of rewarding dessert is impracticable. And certainly to the extent that the precept of need is emphasized, moral worth is ignored. Nor does the basic structure tend to balance the precepts of justice so as to achieve the requisite correspondence behind the scenes. It is regulated by the two principles of justice which define other aims entirely. On the other hand, the absence of individual dessert creates a presumption in favor of regarding the distribution of talents as a common asset. The lack of desert or a pre-institutional concept of virtue means that institutions are unconstrained by antecedent moral claims in their pursuit of the primary virtue of social justice. In this sense, the analogy of manna from even is apt. The array of assets dealt by fortune is neither just nor unjust. "These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts." There is no reason to let assets and the benefits that flow from them lie where they fall. This would be simply to incorporate and affirm the arbitrariness of nature. The discovery that virtue and entitlements await social institutions rather than constrain them is a reason to pursue justice all the more insistently, not a reason to freeze arbitrariness in place." ANALYSIS: Justice and morality require the elimination of inequalities as much as is possible. Because of this, there is moral obligation placed on those in a position to help, to render some aid. Thus, I affirm. REBUTTING THE CON The Con makes the unwarranted claim that the extremely poor don"t need much money, because they do not require material goods to be happy. But, when you live on less than $2 a day, happiness is when you"re able to afford food that day. I will address my opponent"s comments by pointing out precisely why the poor need money, not merely to be content, but to stay alive, safe, and healthy. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they "die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death." Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children." Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350"500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide Water problems affect half of humanity: Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day. More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day. Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness. Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits. Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water. All of the above problems illustrate how dire the situation is for the very poor, and underscore the need to provide them assistance. I await the con"s replies.