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

To be honest, I'm not familiar with this kind of structure (CX), though I will do my best to adhere to Pro's request. In this round I will be making my case, and will not provide a thorough rebuttal to Pro's contentions until R3 and R4. Hopefully I am doing this right. Thus far Pro has said that his value criterion will be morality. However, morality is far too broad of a criterion. Obviously what is considered moral ought to be the focus of this debate as per the resolution. The problem lies within the fact that various moral standards can be used to describe what is moral. For example, Pro brings up Kant's categorical imperative as one possible standard. Meanwhile, I might propose a different moral framework - perhaps adhering to objectivist ethics. Both Pro and I could describe what is considered moral under our propositions, but our burden in the debate is to prove which of our standards actually defines one's moral obligations. As a moral realist, I propose that moral statements are statements which express propositions that are true or false, and the truth or falsity of said moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc. Ordinary canons of moral reasoning together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning constitute a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge [1]. In other words, moral claims do purport to report facts, and are true if they get the facts right. At least some moral claims are actually true. In this debate, I will be arguing in favor of an objectivist meta-ethical standard as morally true. This proposal posits that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, so long as one's actions in the pursuit of their own interests does not infringe upon the rights of another to enjoy or protect their own interests. If and when I prove this moral proposition to be true, it will negate the resolution that one has a moral OBLIGATION to assist those "in need. " It should be recognized that the resolution refers to the is-ought problem: what IS determines what one OUGHT to do. One should do what is in their rational self-interest. This may or may not include helping another in need. For example, it may be gratifying to me to help another in need and therefore I should. However, one does not have an obligation to do so. Suggesting otherwise is merely an opinion. The difference between Pro's standard and mine is that his moral proposition is based entirely on opinion rather than objective facts. However my objective system of morality is both possible and necessary to protect rights. We have no reason to accept Pro's opinion about what is "good" or "bad" vs. my rational explanation for such. Following one's own rational self-interest (without physically impeding on another's) is morally good for several reasons. First, we have no reason to see it as a BAD moral standard. If one is not doing anything to harm another, then they are not doing anything bad. Second, we have a reason to see it as a GOOD moral standard. Here's why: An organism's life is its standard of value. One's life is the single criterion for which ALL of their values derive. In other words, one would not be able to hold ANY moral values without first being alive. As such, doing what furthers one's own life is good. Because people seek happiness and survival, then doing things to further their life and happiness are good. Infringing on another's ability to do the same is bad, because it violates their single most important value - their life (and subsequent happiness). We have no obligation to help others - just an obligation to not infringe on their livelihoods unjustly. Thus far Pro has not given us one reason why helping others is an obligation rather than an option. Beginning in the next round, I will begin my detailed analysis of why his contentions are merely suggestions though not morally justified ones. Meanwhile, he will not be able to criticize my case. A re-cap is as follows --> Because values derive from life, and because only particular living organisms exist, ethics is inherently egoistic. Values are survival needs; they are ends required by a particular entity for its survival. To sustain and further one's life, one must pursue and achieve one's own values. What is or is not to one's interest is not self-evident -- it must be determined by reference to his survival needs, which, in turn, are determined by the kind of entity he is [2]. As such, some (even most) may find it gratifying to help others in need. However we have no INHERENT OBLIGATION to do so. It is not necessarily your existence, but rather the perpetuation of your values that is of utmost importance. Morality isn't subjective - values are subjective. You have to support your values in a moral way; that is, not infringing on other's rights. Affirming the resolution impedes on one's rights by suggesting they ought to live/act for one other than themselves. Though I will touch upon this further in the next round, saying we have an obligation via social contract is not sufficient, as one is not bound by any contract they did not agree to either legally or otherwise (morally). One only has an obligation to themselves. While that obligation may coincide with assisting others in need, it doesn't have to. Remember - Just because you might think someone SHOULD help another in need, doesn't mean that one has an OBLIGATION to. I might think Bill Gates should donate at least half of his fortune, as that would be a really generous thing to do with vast benefits to a lot of people using a utilitarian value. However, Bill Gates is not obligated to do as such just because I think it would be nice of him. Back to you for now, Pro, and good luck. [1] Boyd, Richard N. "How to Be a Moral Realist" in Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey - Essays on Moral Realism. Cornell University Press (1988), pp. 181–228. [2] . http://www.noblesoul.com...