Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to begin with a few general observations of the first round arguments. A number of statements are made by Pro which, by his own admission, are subjective in nature. He also makes universal statements absent support. I will argue against his assumptions and put forth sufficient evidence to establish that the alleviation of suffering is a mischaracterization of the purpose of morals or morality, while affirming the construct that morals are not universal as a philosophical operant but particular, to both the individual and/or the group. Let us begin with an absolute rejection of my opponent’s first source: "It is possible for a society to regard morality as being concerned primarily with minimizing the harms, e.g., pain and disability that all human beings can suffer. Such a society might claim that their morality, in which minimizing the harms that all human beings can suffer is the primary concern, is based on some universal features of human nature or of all rational beings. Although all societies include more than this in their moralities, this feature of morality, unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality in all societies."(Bernard Gert,…) (emp. Added) I shall remove subordinate clauses, examples, and superfluous to the point, material and rephrase the above. A society, or individual, regarding morality, concerned with minimizing harm is Possible. It is equally possible that the society would have no regard for any morality, and value suffering, the Puritans come to mind. The society might claim, or might not, that their morality, or lack thereof, is based upon universal features of human nature. A society might equally claim that either a) some humans are not human and suffering is irrelevant; b) some humans are greater than others and deserve less suffering; c) suffering means the humans are evil. This feature of morality is included in everything that is regarded as morality in ALL societies. I think the feature of which the learned professor refers is suffering or alleviation, he claims it is UNIVERSAL, and then qualifies the universal to the Particular and claims since all societies claim this is the case, the fallacy of the universal, (the US makes no such claim) it IS the case. I am sure Dr. Gert is well qualified as a teacher, but the above quote indicates he may be confused. A source, must be accepted as authoritative by either both parties of a debate, or established as authoritative through facts. Dr. Gert is neither, ergo not a qualified authority and in the alternative the citation fails miserably. Morals are probably, and certainly possibly, concerned with behavior not effect. Any other use of the suffering argument is herewith rendered moot. (US definition meaning, not open to debate) I reject my opponent’s definition of need(s) and offer Maslow’s hierarchy as the more accurate, and certainly, for a morals debate, more appropriate than Webster’s. (abrahammaslow.com, though this is considered common knowledge) I reject Life magazine as a source for morality and certainly reject a novelist on the grounds that ad populem reasoning is fallacious. I reject all numerical statements as an attempt at ad populem and lacking a Source. Cite the red Cross if you wish, but only to support the Red Cross. It is still ad populem reasoning. “My second contention is that not assisting others in need leads to greater human suffering. In the early morning of March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped, and robbed in front of her apartment. Some reports say that 38 people saw or heard her being stabbed or her screaming for help. But, little was done. A few called the police but, no one went outside to see if the young woman was alive. She died. Many of the witnesses couldn't explain why they didn't or they said that they were too tired to get involved. Kitty was in need and others did not help her. By assisting, they could of have stopped her suffering in a time of need.” Is the above from the fiction writer? It is also ad populem. My opponent has failed to a) establish that any moral, regulator or operant, is universal; b) that if it were it concerns itself with effect; c)that any of the factual information in his position is true correct and accurate; or that d) his construct of morals should be accepted over Maslow’s The rape of a woman, though illegal in many societies, is accepted as just in many other. It is also irrelevant to the universality of morals. (appeal to emotion) Sources Relied Upon Maslow’s Hierarchy Self-actualization is the highest need, and include Morals. Aristotle’s Logic, specifically fallacies. Logicalfallacies.info has good information