Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

“Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” In the study of ethics, this is an integral observation for moral action and just behavior. It is because I am in agreement with the great historian and academic, Howard Zinn, that I stand in strong affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.I will now define some of the key terms in today’s debate from Black’s Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: Individuals: Single persons as distinguished from group or classHave: To hold in possessionMoral Obligation: a duty which is valid and binding in conscience and according to natural justicePeople in need: “human beings” who “lack something requisite”Observation 1: in this debate I do not have to prove that all individuals have a moral obligation, as this would be abusive to the resolution: some humans lack the basic requirements of responsible moral agency.The highest value of today’s debate is clearly that of Morality. Morality is a right, universal code of conduct that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. It is rationally and ethically defensible with procedural tests for identifying morally permissible actions. It’s moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times. Morality is saliently important because it gives us the instructions for right action. Without it, family, society, and humanity would fail while chaos would become commonplace. The Value Criterion I will use to achieve my value of Morality is Moral Responsibility. Moral Responsibility is the responsibility of conscience that justifies claims and ascriptions of praise and blame, reward and punishment. This applies to when a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, and is a prime importance in this debate because it is precisely what warrants moral action. Without moral responsibility there would be no way to judge morally significant actions; thus, any objective moral action would be done unintentionally. Contention one: Our moral responsibility requires us to be altruistic. Moral responsibility is a natural component of moral agency, the capacity for those actions which have a moral quality. Moral responsibility demands altruism as an essential component of morality. Altruism is showing a regard for the welfare of others, and since moral responsibility warrants action based on this, morality is upheld and achieved. When we see a kid who has fallen off of his bicycle and injured himself, we feel a moral obligation to assist him because of this altruistic quality inherent in moral agency. The assistance we would offer this child would be medical aid, assurance, and comfort. We are morally obligated to assist him because of our moral responsibility. This assistance does not breed dependence or aberrant behavior. All major religions denote the moral importance of charity, benevolence, and altruism to people in need. Confucianism teaches five virtues that an individual should practice every day to live a virtuous, moral life: Ren is the virtue of benevolence, charity, and humanity; Yì comprised of zhong, conscientiousness, and shù , reciprocity, altruism, and consideration for others; then there’s Zhi, knowledge; Xin, integrity; and, Li, correct behavior. We see examples of numerous codes, religions, and traditions throughout history and dispersed globally which developed the same pillars of altruism and benevolence for people in need. This is an extraordinary paradigm of just how pervasive this most essential concept of morality is. This moral norm was discovered in light of an unchanging and objective set of moral principles that find their source in the realities of human existence. It is clear that morality is a universal concept of which people adhere to based upon their deepest integrity. The Philosopher Sam Harris writes in his book, The Moral Landscape, “helping strangers can be one of humanity’s greatest sources of happiness.” The morality inherent in human beings obligates compassionate assistance through moral responsibility which culminates in a mutually beneficial moral exchange that helps humanity.Contention two: The myriad ways individuals can fulfill their moral obligation to assist people in need ensure morality. The common misconception about assistance for the needy is that it is always financial, and thus, fosters dependence and self-defeating behaviors when misapplied. However, assistance is extremely varied, thus fulfilling the moral obligation we have to assist people in need can always be moral, can always be feasible, and can always be compatible with our moral responsibility. People can be in need of food, water, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, love, and life saving assistance. Accordingly, the ways in which individuals meet the needs of others is widely diversified to amply suit the requirements of moral action. Encouragement, love, advice, volunteering, charity, benevolence, rescue, and many other forms of assistance constitute moral actions for corresponding needs. Therefore, assisting people in need is moral despite one’s predicament.Contention three: Assisting people in need is obligated by Universal Morality.As Immanuel Kant aptly synthesized, “Act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law.” We simply apply rationale to action, and when we do that we see that we should act in universally valid and moral ways. Actions are wrong if the success of the proposed action depends upon making an exception for yourself. The act of assisting people in need passes the seven tests for ethical decision making: Harm test, Publicity test, Defensibility test, Reversibility test, Virtue test, Professional test, Colleague test, and Organization test. However, when the act is avoided, tests are scored negatively. Thus, morality obligates assistance to people in need.