Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

I negate the resolution stating Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Before moving on, some terms of the resolution must be defined. Moral obligation, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is a duty or responsibility to something or someone pertaining to the conscience. For this debate, I will use a value of Responsibility, because this debate is about whether or not it is our responsibility to assist other people. I will use a value criterion of Discretion, because by using discretion, we can make judgments as to when it is right to assist somebody. My value criterion achieves my value because by using discretion in certain situations, a person can make responsible decisions that will both benefit themselves and the person in need. I will be arguing this resolution with three contentions. Contention 1: Obligations to oneself must come before the obligations to others. If an individual viewed their own welfare as less significant than the welfare of other people, then logically they would be able to promote the welfare of other people without having any obligation to promote the individuals own well-being(This is a simplistic explanation of the concept of anti-egoism). If anti-egoism were true between individuals, then it would be simple to affirm this resolution. However, one must ask: How could the well-being of other people be of less importance than that of yourself? There are multiple things wrong with this theory. For one thing, you can't help others if you're dead, and you can't keep yourself alive very well if you don't think of your own survival as more important than the welfare of somebody else. Therefore, this concept that would be essential to affirming this resolution falls. Part of using discretion in a situation is taking to account your own welfare along with the welfare of the individual in need. If discretion is not used, then responsible decisions can't be made. Contention 2: Failing to assist those in need doesn't make them no longer of value. My opponent may argue that by not assisting those in need, it states that their lives are not of value. However, not assisting those in need instead states that it would not be a right decision to help the person in need. As H. M. Malm, writer and modern philosopher, states, "My failure to save you implies only that I do not think that the burden of saving you falls on me; it implies nothing of what I think about the value of your life." Not helping somebody in need does not do anything to state that their lives are not valuable, only that it wouldn't be a responsible decision. By using discretion such as this, it would allow for more responsible decisions about helping people. Contention 3: Helping somebody in need may lead to a lack of self-reliance. If a society in which everybody was OBLIGATED to help each other existed, then an individual could exploit that society. This would lead to more laziness: if everybody in a society were OBLIGATED to help the individual, then the individual wouldn't have to do anything, because somebody else would do it for him/her. This means that the resolution would lead to an absence of responsibility. In conclusion, having sympathy for those in need is not the same thing as having an obligation to them. To go over my contentions, obligations to oneself must come before the obligations to others, and failing to assist those in need doesn't make them no longer of value. Third, helping an individual can lead to a loss of self-reliance. I urge a negative ballot in today's debate.