Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

In response to my example about helping someone commit a crime, Pro brings up three points. First, he says that the assailant is not in need. This is not true because what determines need was never clarified in the resolution or opening round. Someone in need is merely one who requires assistance. Being in need does not necessarily refer to a life or death situation as Pro implies. This point has therefore been negated. Second, Pro claims that helping another commit a crime is not really assisting - but assisting is assisting. The CI says that reason separate from all empirical experience determines the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. Pure practical reason in the process of determining it dictates what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. However it would be impossible to reason without considering empirical factors. Noticing a negative outcome (i.e., suffering) is an empirical observation. Therefore, in suggesting we have a moral obligation to alleviate suffering, one must conclude that the concept of suffering being negative was obtained via reasoning utilizing empirical data. Pro claims in his third point that not assisting one in need necessarily provides morally reprehensible consequences, because the opposite is true - helping is good. Once again, my objectivist retaliation addresses and negates this premise. My proposition is that helping is not necessarily good, nor is it necessarily bad. It is morally good if it coincides with my expressed rational self-interest (if it's what I want to do, for whatever reason - even at a potential cost to myself). It is morally bad if the action is forced either upon myself by another, or on another by myself - as not infringing on another's rights is the sole factor in determining moral good from bad. As I explained, this is because the only objective moral criterion can be a respect for other people's values. Morality is not subjective though values are. It is moral to allow everyone to live according to their values, so long as they in doing so do not infringe on another person's right to do the same. Pro continues to assert Kant's point - that the reason we are obligated to assist those in need is because we have a duty to assist them, and our duty obligates us to assist. However this is utilizing completely circular reasoning. Pro says I cannot say that because we are egotistical beings, then the basis for our morality must be selfish... yet he says we have a duty to assist, and the reason is because assisting is our duty. Obviously this is insufficient. Pro explains that the is/ought problem is about deriving an ought from an is. He writes, "...Ourselves being rational doesn't conclude that helping someone is morally right we must use rationality to determine if it is morally right." Of course we can only use rationality if we are indeed rational, so Pro has negated his own point. Nevertheless, I maintain that any moral system discussing what IS must surely be based in some way on the way things ARE. Kant recognized this problem, and attempted to avoid grounding morality in some empirical fact about humans, but nonetheless chose to ground it in our capacity for practical reasoning. More specifically, in our capacity to express genuine autonomy by acting on universalizable maxims. As such, Kant does indeed account to the is/ought gap contrary to Pro's assertion. Pro states, "We must help because it is our obligation to. Not because our rationality tells us too." This is either contradictory or non-sensical. If the conclusion is that we must help, then we ought to believe that this conclusion was reached through using rational reasoning. In fact, Kant uses rationality SPECIFICALLY to uphold his CI. He says we must choose what is moral based on what is rational. That is what determines our obligations. Pro says, "Choosing what you wanted to do (starve) is not equal to surviving. Thsis is a violation of Egotistic ethics." I'm sure the audience can see the clear mistake Pro mistakes here. Starving is in fact equal to starving, whether it was chosen or not. If Gandhi starved to death and a homeless man starved to death, then both of them will have starved. This is not against egoist ethics and in fact supports it. As I explained, if one chooses to starve so that their child can eat (and survive), this decision was based on their ego - what they WANTED to do (have their child survive, even at a cost to themselves). This action can be considered morally right because it allows an individual to act upon their desire without infringing on another's rights or happiness. Not once throughout this entire debate has Pro ever criticized this ideal, specifically. My moral standard must therefore be upheld. utal and ci I pointed out that Pro has agreed with my proposal of doing what is in our self-interest if he suggests that selflessness is in fact in our self-interest. He says that the only difference is that I am arguing that helping those in need is therefore our moral obligation because of the fact that it is in our self-interest. However this completely ignores the fact that one can equally morally choose NOT to help those in need. Why? The resolution is about a mandate to help others because it is beneficial to THEM. If I deem in any situation for it NOT to be in my self-interest DESPITE their need, then the resolution is negated. Pro does not account for this. Pro says I am arguing egoism over objectivism, yet clearly the two are compatible. He also says objectivism mandates helping people. I challenge Pro to show me where Ayn Rand EVER required this. At best, she said helping others is useful because it increases the likelihood of them helping you. However that doesn't mean that helping is ALWAYS the moral standard. Kant would say the CI is applicable Pro says for self-interest to be the supreme value of one's life ignores other important aspects of human existence, such as love and friendship. On the contrary, romantic and other relationships ARE egoist in nature. We love and befriend those who bring us security and/or happiness. Pro concludes by saying that objectivism (rational egoism) was a direct cause of the fall of the Roman Empire and what we see in America today: the rich maintaining control in society. The audience should disregard this assertion, as Pro does not prove it but merely states it, much like his other arguments throughout this debate. I could easily list a plethora of other reasons explaining the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, and/or America's current economic situation. Further, anyone who understands laissez faire capitalism (what Ayn Rand proposes coincides with her ethical belief system) knows that what we see in America is certainly NOT compatible with Rand's propositions. Out of character space - thanks for the debate.