Individual's have a moral obligation to assist people in need

"Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world." It is because I agree with the words of Howard Zinn that I stand Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Before we begin I would like to offer the following definitions: Moral obligation - A duty which one owes, and which one ought to perform (Law Dictionary) Assist - a play that helps to put out a batter or base runner. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) Or An act of help, typically by providing money Need - A condition requiring relief. The highest value of today's round is that of Human Dignity which is defined as the inherent worth of individuals that exists a priori, that is, exists independent of circumstances. Affirming Human Dignity means affirming the worth of individuals not because of what they do but because of their humanity. The criterion for the round is egalitarianism which is the belief that human worth is equal amongst all human beings. Egalitarianism the best criterion for the round because, while human dignity is a prerequisite of any other values and the foundation of a just society, egalitarianism is a prerequisite for human dignity, for once human dignity is not recognized as universal, it is then no longer inherent. I intend to show that the egalitarian ethic is exemplified in libertarian/socialist social structure, a structure that relies on a moral obligation to assist others. Contention 1: Wealth inequality is inherently dehumanizing. With the acknowledgment of equal human dignity, wealth inequality is an unacceptable form of dehumanization that places a value on an individual's worth to society. This lack of equality is not only an affront to egalitarianism and thus human dignity but also an affront to liberty, for equality is, rather than mutually exclusive as viewed by some, a necessary component of liberty. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, "one can appreciate that having money gives one effective freedom to engage in a wide variety of activities and experiences. One has the option to purchase any of many commodities and do with them whatever is legally and conventionally allowed, up to the limit of one's budget. The ideal of equality of income and wealth is roughly the ideal that people should enjoy this effective freedom to the same extent." Inequality of income provides greater liberty to those with jobs supposedly more valuable to society. However, this belief has no basis in fact. Why should the street sweeper be said to deserve less income and thus less liberty than the banker or CEO? We should look to a world where professions are not chosen out of a drive for profit, a drive propagated by the notion that we are some how "worth more" by choosing a high class profession, and instead, look to a world where professions are done not based out of a desire for profit but a desire for meaning. This would not only be morally right but economically more efficient by allowing individuals to pursue career they find the most meaning from. Thus, Wealth equalization is a prerequisite to upholding egalitarianism and thus human dignity. Contention 2: An egalitarian society can only exists through an obligation to assist those in need By its very definition, need implies an inequality of condition. This inequality of condition, as has been stated, is unacceptable to a society that strives for the dignity of all members. The only way an ideal structure can be achieved is through the voluntary distribution of wealth exhibited in the communes. In this system of free association, individuals are free from not only the coercion of state control embodied in the Soviet Union but also free from the more subtle forms of social despotism found in capitalism. But this absolute freedom from coercion can only be achieved if from the bottom up, thus bypassing the state. Thus it is individuals and not the state that must act to end income inequality.