Looking for a Challenge.

Even though he 'forfeited' the round by not submitting his second round response in time, 1stLordofTheVenerability posted his choice of topic in the comments section, and we agreed to continue this debate regardless. The debate he chose was option 3: We, as individuals, have a moral duty to give a significant amount of our income to charity. I am proposing this motion, and 1stLordofTheVenerability is opposing it. As I do not yet know exactly the approach that he will take in opposing the motion, I will list out my case in relatively brief form, so that I don't spend too much time developing points that he immediately concedes. Due to this, sometimes I'll assert things which could be developed further - rest assured that, if challenged on the point by my opponent, I will do so. As always, I retain the right to introduce extra points/material as may prove necessary in further rounds. So without further ado: === INTRODUCTION === My claim, detailed above, can be split down into two separate arguments: firstly, that we should give a significant amount of our income to charity; and secondly, that we have a moral duty to do so. === ARGUMENT 1: THAT WE SHOULD GIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO CHARITY === As I said in the first round definitions, I have left the precise definition of "significant amount" deliberately vague. It is clear enough, however, that this is different from giving a small amount of money (say $5) every now and again, perhaps when they feel particularly moved by a TV appeal, the disaster affects them personally, or maybe because the person on the street soliciting donations was hot enough to catch and keep their attention. People should either give a little bit of money on a more regular basis, or give a larger donation (more in the region of $500/$1,000 than a fiver) on the same basis that they currently do, whichever they are more able to do based upon how much disposable income they have at any one time. I have two main reasons for this: 1) More money helps more people. A fiver by itself may help save one child, or provide for a few vaccines. $500 (or whatever), however, could help many more children, provide more vaccines, or even be instrumental in building better roads, more hospitals, training and hiring more nurses, etc. - long-term development goals that develop a whole community to deal with problems rather than remaining reliant on external aid. 2) We can't rely on everyone to donate. This may be because they either literally don't have any disposable income or don't perceive giving to charity as a moral duty in the same way that I argue we should do. Even if reason 1) isn't accepted, then, we should cover for those who can't give, by giving as much as we can, as often as we can. === ARGUMENT 2: THAT WE HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO GIVE TO CHARITY === I probably should provide a couple of extra definitions - apologies for not doing so in the first round. I will try to define "moral duty" without getting too much into philosophical technicalities. Basically, at the moment society generally views giving to charity as a voluntary act, something which people are praised for if they do, but not especially blamed if they don't. I propose that society should see giving to charity as something which everyone (who can do so) should do, and as such people won't be praised for giving to charity, and would/should be blamed if they can do without significantly impoverishing themselves but do not. A "charity" is a not-for-profit organisation, and is defined by Merriam-Webster.com as "an institution engaged in the relief of the poor" and "public provision for the relief of the needy". That out of the way, I have one main reason for this, which is perhaps best expressed in three parts: 1) People suffering and dying is bad. This is probably a safe assumption. 2) Charities are there to ease suffering and prevent death in situations where we cannot directly do so. This, once again, is probably a safe assumption. 3) There is no morally relevant difference between situations where people are suffering and dying nearby, where we can directly help them, and far away, where we cannot. This one is more likely to be contentious. So now to go into the lovely realm of thought experiments: Let us imagine that someone - for sake of names, let's call him Steve - is walking between business meetings when he comes across a young child drowning in a pond in the park. The child's mother is the only other adult around and can't swim, meaning that she's either by the pool out of her mind in despair, or is drowning alongside her son. (If the latter, don't worry: Steve has just about enough time to save both of them.) Steve, however, can swim. Fairly well. It is fairly straightforward what Steve should do. It may make him late for his next meeting, or ruin (what for the purposes of this thought experiment we'll say is) his expensive, tailor-made suit, but none of that should matter. He should jump in and save the child. (Hell, he might even have time to take his jacket and shoes off, keeping the dry-cleaning bill to a minimum. Win-win! :p) Furthermore, he should do so, and we would be right to think him to be a moral monster if he did not. We can paraphrase this as him having a moral duty to save the child. Granted, there are many superficial differences between the decision to help here, and the decision to (perhaps indirectly) help people helped by charities. But none of them are morally relevant. Perhaps the closest you can get to a good difference is the difficulty sometimes in knowing to which charity you should donate your money. But this would only lead to people needing to spend some time researching the different charities to determine which is best at helping those in need; it doesn't mean that we should shirk our duty to donate at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd usually now write out a conclusion. However, thanks to the amazing decision of debate.org to allow us to format our debating rounds, to read my argument in a brief and snappy summary all you have to do is read the sentences in bold :-) I await my opponent's response.