Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

RebuttalMy opponent chooses my aforestated value of morality for his case; however, we differ on definition, and I will urge you to accept mine. My opponent states that morality is, “based in rules of interaction that guide our decisions. Our decisions come from self-interest and intending to recognize desired ends.” This makes morality as arbitrary as playing with play-dough or selling drugs to children to buy porn. If self-interest is the highest good of morality, any action (provided it doesn’t intentionally use force on others) would be moral. Lying, cheating, stealing, attaining every possible clandestine advantage, and other acts we deem wholly immoral are considered moral in this system. The reason we deem them immoral is due to our moral responsibility, which ascribes to them guilt and punishment. Needless to say, a society of Egoistic Game Theory robots would not be a moral place to live, but an amoral one.My opponent chooses a value criterion of “realizing self-regarding ends” and a basis of Egoism for his argumentation. This theory says that what one morally ought to do is whatever is in one's own self-interest. It rejects altruism, and says that the only way to truly value ourselves and humanity is to care solely about our own life projects. Quick question: when thinking about a moral person you are familiar with, does there immediately arise in your mind a person wholly concerned with his own self-interested desires who rejects a concern for the welfare of others? The point is there is no direct connection of acting in self-interest and acting morally. Without moral responsibility, judging morally significant actions is an impossibility.Egoism is the only moral theory which directly and unequivocally disregards positive moral obligations. It accepts negative moral obligations, and it holds that hurting others or using force and intimidation against others is necessarily self-harming, since it is inconsistent with the nature of man to do so. So, as Pro all I have to do to turn Con’s case into flowing Pro is demonstrate that it is in the majority of people’s self-interest to help others in need. This would indicate a positive moral obligation, as it is an act, not a withholding of an act, which is consistent with the nature of man to help people in need. Furthermore, according to Egoism if the only action that stands in the way of furthering one’s own goals is using force, then any other action performed by that agent is moral. This opens a Pandora’s Box of society-destroying behaviors when Universalized. It goes without saying that actions deemed moral under Egoism do not pass basic procedural tests for morality, demonstrating an inherent contradiction in Con’s case.What basic fulfillment do people achieve through helping people in need? As I stated in my case, the Philosopher Sam Harris writes in his book, The Moral Landscape, “helping people can be one of humanity’s greatest sources of happiness.” How could a non-selfish act be in one’s self interest? The answer can be found in our genes. This can be further understood when we delve deeper into my case’s mention that the work of two evolutionary biologists’ work on “reciprocal altruism examines the psychological and social aspects of altruism which are empirically observable in brain scans, group behavior, and the acceptability of actions.” When we examine the brain scans, the ‘reward system’ of the brain is engaged and satisfactory brain chemicals are released. This is the part of the brain we have the least control over, since it is the most primal and instinctual. Primary rewards of this circuitry include those that are necessary for the survival of species, which elucidates the emotional truism Sam Harris expressed. It is an inherent part of humanity, which necessitates that we have moral responsibility.My opponent describes weak egoism as an agent having, “self-regarding ends, an expectation without which the agent would not have performed the action.” Regardless of the reward, individuals sacrifice to help people in need. Fathers feed their families according to the Marxian principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Volunteers offer unpaid service at soup kitchens. A driver pulls over to help a child who has fallen off a bicycle. Egoism cannot sustain itself under critical scrutiny, and outside theory it is consistently, overwhelmingly disproven.The resolution is affirmed.