Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. I stand on the firm affirmation of today’s resolution, be it resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. According to the American Heritage Dictionary “need” in the context as object of the preposition “in” means “A condition of poverty or misfortune.” For today’s debate, I will use “societal welfare” as my value, achieved through the value criterion of NET BENEFITS. I negate the Aff's Value & VC because there is no direct correlation between morality and liberty. A woman may have the freedom to have an abortion, but whether or not it is a moral decision is a COMPLETELY different matter. That is why I ask the voters to look toward my Value & Criterion. Contention 1: The principal of beneficence requires those who pursue luxury to first ensure the necessities of everybody else. Sub-Point A: The principle of beneficence describes a moral obligation to help others. 1. Beneficence is defined according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as including “effectively all forms of action intended to benefit or promote the good of other persons. The language of a principle or rule of beneficence refers to a normative statement of a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others, helping them to further their important and legitimate interests.” Therefore, the principal of beneficence declares that there is a moral obligation to help others. B. The principle of beneficence morally requires the necessities of everyone before surplus of anyone. 1. Bob Corbett quotes the 20th century philosopher Peter Singer’s expansion on beneficence: “Singer formulates that obligation in the following manner: ‘if it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.’” 2. Bob Corbett moves on to outline “Working from this asserted principle, Singer goes on to distinguish between absolute poverty -- a state where one does not have the necessities to even stay alive, or at least to maintain a life of minimal human dignity, and absolute luxury -- a state of where one has goods beyond those of absolute poverty. He argues that the principle of beneficence requires that everyone's necessity is morally prior to anyone's luxury, and thus we are morally required to attend to everyone's absolute necessities before attending to our own luxuries.” He also summarizes “Singer's distinction between absolute poverty and absolute luxury is that the distinction is quite clear and we can empirically distinguish between them in most actual cases.” This shows that there is an observable difference between surplus and necessity, and that everyone’s necessity comes morally before anyone’s luxury. Contention 2: At the sacrifice of little, we can engender great benefits. According to Hunger Notes are 925 million hungry people in the world (13.6%). Also, they say, “The world produces enough food to feed everyone. … [There is] enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.” According to US News) “Worldwide, 1.1 billion people lack clean water, 2.6 billion people go without sanitation, and 1.8 million children die every year because of one or the other, or both.” The article continues to cite the growing water crisis. Later, it confirms that if solved this problem becomes self-managed when it states, “Studies have shown that providing clean water and sanitation brings tremendous benefits. Health costs go down. People live longer, stay healthier, and become more productive.” Finally, it states that the minimum amount of water needed is 20-50 Liters. In contrast, the average American consumes 400-600 liters a day, over eight times the necessary amount at the least. Solving this, 300 million Americans consume the amount of water needed by over 2 billion people in addition to their own; and only 1 billion people are in need of water. Again, by violating the principle of beneficence we can see that individuals with mass surplus are morally obligated to assist others in need, and this evidence shows that there is enough water in the world for everyone. Sub-Point C: In the world and the U.S.A., a small loss of luxury can vastly aid poorer nations. 1. According to Santa Clara University’s Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez’s World Hunger: A Moral Response, “In 1990, the World Bank urged the international community to increase aid to poor countries to 0.7% of their GNP. If this goal is reached, poverty could be reduced by as much as 40% by the end of this decade.” This would vastly improve economic conditions in the nations, OPENING UP opportunities for greater commerce activity internationally, including the US. This statistic shows that the loss in luxury of the world would be very minimal in comparison to the gain in defeating poverty, over 40% in a single decade at less than 1% of each nation’s GNP. Yet, a cost-analysis shows that such a small amount can recompense us even greater boons. It opens our economy up to new imports from the nation. For instance, IRAQ after its liberation experienced heavy economic depredation. According to the Independent News, after the international community assisted Iraq through taxpayer money, it has become a powerhouse in the oil industry and is an active partner with America. In fact, in Kurdistan alone, 45 billion barrels of oil are stored, ready to be sold. Ultimately, by upholding the principle of beneficence, the American individuals are GAINING greater benefits from it. Not only is helping the needy definitely a moral obligation, but it is one that also benefits us. The judge should look toward the value of “societal welfare,” as it encompasses many other values. To truly attain this state, we humans must pursue net benefits. BECAUSE the AFF. has shown 1) why the obligation is “moral,” as according to the principle of benefice by philosopher Singer, and 2) why this moral obligation upholds net benefits, as both sides – the individuals assisting and those in need of help – have much to gain, I urge the judge for a strong vote on the AFFIRMATION. Rebuttal:C1 - Negation states that obligations degrade altriusm, and that humanity only progresses through a non-imposed altruism. This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not a "moral obligation" is imposed on altruism, the person that does a good, charitable act will be considered altrustic regardless. To uphold the criterion of net benefits, we need to see what does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. With the Aff, we have the people practicing altruism be satisfied (b/c they know they have done a good deed), and the people that receive such altruism be happy. However, w/ the Neg, we have those who forgo altruism completely - and less people receive altruism. It is simply illogical to agree with Neg's contention.C2 - Ethical egoism is of "greater morality." As I said before, net benefits and societal welfare is achieved by the greatest good. The Negation fails to realize that this is not the perfect world, where people donate freely without being asked to. In a perfectly pragmatic view, to achieve net benefits, we need to have a catalyst that drives people to be altruistic - a 'moral obligation.'C3 - True altruism creates dependence. Without some kind of statics or study on the psychology of humans, we simply cannot believe this baseless claim. Everybody has the incentive to succeed in life. What one receives in altruism pales in comparison to one's dreams and goals in his or her life. I urge a strong ballot on the AFF.Sources:http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.scu.edu...http://www.usnews.com...;