Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Note: Please, open up your source file so I can check you citation. In the same way you allude previously in #2 to Wittgenstein {quote: “The case of ordinary language is quite analogous”} but he only says we are limited by our thoughts. It only means that we cannot for example hear things outside audibility range, we cannot see light beyond the range of 380 nanometers - 780 nanometers. This does not, however, mean we physically do cease to exist, or that we are stuck in parallel universes, but simply that we cannot say more than we perceive. Ignorance is bliss, and if inductive reasoning is false how exactly did you come to this exact conclusion? #3 Metaethics? Metaethics as you stated is false. Meta- means false. Although moral claims are not absolute they are still pragmatic. Thus, contention 3 is a false claim. Moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth. However, you should not assume that other cultures are moral. Our morality is bounded by knowledge. Knowledge according to plato is the light at the end of tunnel (cave), and since we are stuck underground our insight must try to be conservative. #4) The philosophy of inaction is a moot point. The onotology of Western thought derives from this distinction, per se, action is via thought. As John Stuart Mills, in perhaps the most famous piece of literature on democratic thought states: “Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good” In pre-emptive Reasoning, contemplative thought has been aggrandized to that of action. Despite, positive and negative responsibility as cited by Trammel the case of democratic thought would cite the case of positive and negative liberty[1] by Berlin. The tension between positive/negative holds because if we want safety then sometimes we have to give up, and sacrifice something dear to us, in so much as we take part in a democratic venture such as our Constitution we say protect us from outside harm and thereby we work for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Rebuttal: Thus, your normative theory is good in terms of philosophical enterprise but the basis of Western Democracy cannot be left to paltry-idealism? Thus, I would cite as Affirming (Pro): that to protect freedom and liberty in our current situation we need to be based on pragmatism, not on ethics. Furthermore, since the fundamental tenets of our freedom are based upon these two texts I cite them as undeniable proof that our positive obligation must hold strong. If we are to thrive in the next half-century or so, or fall behind other super-powers will depend upon the tenacity of common-will and thus, our natural altruism must not fall apart. It is our obligation to assist those in need so that the moral-fabric can hold society together. Amen. P.S.: I leave the burden of proof to Con. As Pro it is my job to support the motion at the heading of the page. The job of negation as outlined in your previous argument falls on your shoulders. Please provide the proof. I hand it over to you.. [1] +ve/-ve Liberty: http://plato.stanford.edu...