Individuals Have A Moral Obligation To Assist People In Need

Affirmative Case "Each of us is being in himself and being in a society, each of us needs to understand himself and understand others, take care of other ad be taken care of himself."-Haniel Long Because I agree with philosopher Haniel Long, I affirm the resolution. RESOLVED: INDIVIDUALS HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN NEED Here are a few key terms that need to be defined before I begin: (Black Laws Dictionary) Individual: single person Moral: conforming to a standard or good behavior Obligation: a person is bound to do or forbears any duty imposed by law, promise, contract, relations of society, courtesy, kindness. Assist: help; aid People: human beings making up or a group or assembly Need: lack of a factor that is desirable or useful The best Value for this round is Quality of Life which the well-being of a population The best Criterion that best achieves my value is Security which is defined as precautions taken to maintain society Contention 1: Preservation of Human Life in Third World Countries {[Abdullahi Hassan Mohamed, THE REPORTER, Aug. 20, 2011.]} More than 13 million people in Africa have been experiencing the most unparalleled drought and starvation for 60 years, according to a recent UN report. More than 3.7 million people are exposed to famine and starvation. {[George Harrison, UN EXTENDS FAMINE DECLARATION TO MORE AREAS IN SOMALIA, Aug. 3, 2011.]} Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost already in Somalia and other third world countries, many more are at stake. Yet, the international community remains slow in its humanitarian response to this worsening crisis. Unless there is a miraculous increase in aid the famine will spread rapidly and violently. If the world doesn't act quickly, nearly 566,000 children fighting severe malnutrition could lose their struggle to survive. {[Kristina Georgieva, (European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response), HUMANITARIAN AID TO THE HORN OF AFRICA, Sept. 24, 2011.]} The drought in all of the third world countries is one of the most tragic humanitarian crises for decades. Despite the efforts of the international community millions of people are still suffering. We must continue the acute needs of people across the entire area. Our intention is to constantly improve the ways in which we perform our humanitarian work. We have a moral obligation to help the vulnerable victims of this and other crises. In which there is a good source of security that we can only hope to provide for third world countries, we can furthermore achieve the quality of life. If not attempting to provide proper security for other third world countries, then a war might break out between these countries in a fight over lacking resources. This would lead to no quality in life. Contention 2: Assisting others is Essential to Human Survival {(Ben Zion Eliash, (Prof., Law, Temple U. School of Law), St. Louis University Law Journal, 1994, 619.)} The hypothesis was written approximately one hundred years ago by the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in a court case: Suppose A., standing close by a railroad, sees a two-year old child on the track, and a train approaching. He can easily rescue the child, with entire safety to himself, and the instincts of humanity require him to do so. If he does not, he may justly be styled a ruthless savage and a moral monster; but he is not liable for the damages of the child's injury or liable under the statue of the child's death. The legal explanation for this state of affairs is given by the court in short terms: "the duty to do no wrong is a legal duty. The duty to protect against wrong is a moral obligation only, not recognized or enforced by law." Most European countries impose criminal liability on the bystander who fails to fulfill his legal duty of rescuing someone else who might be a total stranger. The common law tradition has long viewed this duty only on a moral one, and "with purely moral obligation, the law does not deal." {(Liam Murphy, (Prof., Law and Philosophy, New York University), GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 2001, 625.)} Though all agree that the person who fails to affect an easy rescue is a moral monster, there is a good deal of disagreement about why. At the level of moral theory, there should be no room, for disagreement: The duty to rescue is a duty of beneficence, a positive duty requiring people to benefit others, even total strangers. By requiring people to benefit others, even total strangers, we achieve a high security and preserving the quality of life for others. If we do not benefit others, or at least attempt to, then this will cause a collapse in security and fall in the quality of life in human beings. Contention 3: There is a Strong Societal Consensus on the Moral Obligation to Assist People in Need {(James Waldron, (Prof., Law Columbia. U.) SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW, 2000, 1076)} There is almost no disagreement in our society about the existence of a moral requirement to rescue. The disagreement is only over the question of whether this acknowledged moral duty should be enforced by a legal duty. Thus, people who argue for Good Samaritan laws and those who oppose them mostly agree about the moral wrongness of failures to rescue. Indeed, opponents of Good Samaritan are often the most vocal in their moral condemnations. {(Melody Stewart, (Prof. Law, U. of Toledo College of Law), AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LIFE, 1998.)} People feeling a moral obligation to do so have in the past aided others in peril. People will continue to assist others-lack in familiarity, inconvenience, and risk or harm or death to oneself notwithstanding. Altruistic behavior is still alive and well in this country. The willingness to help others and even undertake heroic efforts to rescue another need not be legally mandated. Indeed, such compassionate conduct can be found in the youngest of citizens who are not even required to have an appreciation for legally imposed obligations.