Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Attacking the Negative Case: Value: Some of the evidence I presented in my case directly clashes with my opponent’s value of libertarianism. As I explained, we humans have no way of discerning which actions are morally right or wrong until we evaluate the end states those actions produce. For example, we cannot know that killing someone is wrong until we assess the consequences of death. This means that the very idea of harm must be determined by end states, and two actions which lead to the same end state are equally wrong. Since my opponent did not respond to this argument, we must accept it as true in this debate. Therefore, we must acknowledge that failing to give to those in need of life saving-aid is the moral equivalent to killing since they both result in the same end state of death. Choosing to end life would clearly be wrong in both cases. This means that we must reject my opponent’s value of libertarianism, which states that we’re free to do anything as long as we don't harm others. As I've shown, we must also give aid to those in need of food, water, shelter, health services, etc. Criterion (Justice): Justice is largely based on the principle of equality, which states that all humans are morally equal. However, the only way we can uphold this principle is to maximize societal happiness. As Rakowski explains, "Individuals’ status as moral equals requires that the number of people who are happy be maximized. Only in this way, can we give due weight to the equality of persons; to allow [a small number of people to be happy and a large number of people to suffer] is to treat some people as less valuable than others...” To maximize societal happiness, we must provide aid to those in need. This means that affirming the resolution is the only way to uphold justice. Contention 1:My opponent contends that moral obligations cannot exist. This contention is inherently unfair since it places multiple burdens on the affirmative. Namely, it requires me to prove that moral obligations exist and demonstrate that individuals should assist those in need. However, in running this argument, the negative only has to meet one burden – proving that moral obligations don’t exist. Fairness is very important because debate is a competitive activity and ought to have fair rules. The ballot asks for who did the better debating, and such an evaluation is impossible in the prescience of unfair rules. Sub Point A: This argument relies on the premise that individuals cannot understand the specific needs of others. However, all people certainly can understand another individual’s need for food, water, etc. Most people can also identify when these needs are not being met. Thus, my opponent’s sub point A cannot be valid. Sub Point B: Under this sub-point, my opponent argues that people help others out of guilt. However, guilt is actually a direct response to having an obligation. As the Encyclopedia of Psychology states, guilt is defined as an emotion which occurs when a person realizes that he has violated a moral obligation. Therefore, when people act on their feelings of guilt, they’re essentially acting on a moral obligation. This means that my opponent’s argument about guilt can actually be taken as offense for the affirmative.Sub Point C: My opponent argues that we cannot have any obligations since we have a free will. However, there clearly ought to be some moral restrictions on our actions. For instance, all individuals must have a moral duty to refrain from murdering, stealing, cheating, etc. My opponent even appears to concede this point when he stated that we must be responsible and not use force against others. Contention 2: My opponent states that, “The KKK was morally obligated to assist their fellow members by seeking out African Americans and exterminating them....Al-Qaeda requires that all infidels be killed because it is their obligation to annihilate them for their God. With this idea in mind, one will think that conforming to the moral obligations of a society would...be...more of a belief.” These radical groups weren’t acting on valid moral laws, so they were not performing those horrendous acts out of an actual moral obligation to do so. All valid moral laws must be universal, meaning they must apply equally to all individuals. To believe otherwise would create unequal moral burdens for different individuals. However, this would violate the fundamental principles of justice and equality. As Pettit explains, “Every prescription as to what an agent ought to do should be capable of being universalized, so that it applies not just to that particular agent. If we think that it is right for one agent in one circumstance to act in a certain way, but wrong for another, then we commit ourselves to there being some descriptive moral inequality between the two cases. Thus, if we say that an agent A ought to choose option O then we should assume that something similar would hold for any similarly placed agent since the particular identity of agent A is relevant to what A ought to do.” Therefore, a valid moral system must be capable of being universalized. That is, it must have the potential to apply to everyone. Only systems of morality which are based on logic can fulfill this burden since any other source of authority would not be universal. The beliefs of Al-Qaeda, Nazi Germany and the KKK were inherently illogical since they relied on false premises. Thus, their beliefs cannot be considered valid moral laws. For this reason, when these groups acted on their beliefs, they were not acting on an actual moral obligation. This renders my opponent’s attack on the legitimacy of moral obligations as ineffective while also supporting my case (which is based on solid reasoning). Defending the Affirmative Case: Value: My opponent argues against by value of morality by noting that some moral beliefs are not universal. However, as I explained, all valid moral laws are based on logic and can apply to everyone. Some groups may violate their obligations to follow these laws, but this cannot disprove the fact that they exist.In response to my value, the negative also claims, “Humans possess the ability to Choose from right or wrong and not actually be bound to it.” This objection seems to arise over a false understanding of what a moral obligation is. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a moral obligation is defined as a particular duty which one is morally bound to do. This means that a moral obligation isn’t something which we’re forced to conform to. Rather, a moral obligation is something we must conform to only if we wish to be moral. In other words, moral obligations are only morally binding, not absolutely binding. Criterion: To counter my criterion, the negative argues that people cannot be happy unless all of their basic needs, including sex, are met. However, this is not true. As Maslow believed, one only needs to have the majority of their basic needs met in order to be happy. Sub Point 1: To counter this point, the negative argues that moral beliefs differ between societies. However, as I explained above, valid moral laws can apply to everyone since they're based on logical premises. Of course, some groups will violate their obligations to follow these laws, but this cannot disprove the fact that they exist. Sub Point 2: In response to the second sub point my opponent states, “A key factor of util. is that people are not bounded in action and should act in whatever will maximize the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people...[C]learly there is no obligation.” This objection is nonsensical. A moral obligation is a duty which one must perform if they wish to be moral. Therefore, if we should maximize the overall well being we would indeed have a moral obligation to do so. Sub Point 3: To counter this argument, my opponent once again stated that morals aren't universal. However, as I’ve explained before, valid moral laws will apply to everyone.