Resolved: Individuals Have A Moral Obligation To Assist Those In Need

Firstly, I will set up my own argument then proceed to attack Con's points. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. I affirm this resolution. My value for this debate will be Justice. My criterion for this debate will be humans natural instinct to assist other humans in situations of need that the original human or humans can not do alone. I will establish my own definitions for this debate. All definitions are cited from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. Morality is the particular moral principles or rules of conduct or conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Society is the companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company, or a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. I will be using the latter as it allows for better understanding for the debate. Inputting the definition of Altruism would be the same as Con's, so I see no need to repeat it in the debate. My first contention is that of The Golden rule. From the age when we can talk, we are drilled to accept and conform to the Golden rule. The Golden rule is essentially a rule of ethical conduct referring to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31: do to others as you would have them do to you. The Bible states "do to others as you would have them to do to you". This is basically stating that we should do to others what we do to them so if we ever become in this situation we would choose the correct option according to the Golden rule. This goes to if any person is in person requiring adequate need, you should think of if you were in said situation and give help to the person. My second contention is that of helping people in a significant amount of need. The resolution states that Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. Helping a person with a significant problem or obstacle certainly would help said person greatly. Helping a person with an insignificant or such a small problem with whom you are not experienced with or lesser experienced with, then other areas, the person you are trying to assist may have been able to resolve the situation faster than help from you could permit, this may cause the person to become angry or defiant, lashing out on the person assisting to help the person in need. I have finished my argument, now I will attempt to attack my Con's case. In your first contention you stated that the definition of morality would differ depending on your location on Earth. Regardless of the small change in definition on world location, it is still, generally, in the correct nature to help a person in need. Also, regardless of your ethnicity, wouldn't you be more than willing to help another person who is the same ethnicity as you? In your second contention you stated that a person cannot help everyone he/she meets in need. This goes back to my second contention stating that the insignificant or small problems can be avoided to allow further help for any significant problems that anyone is having that the person encounters. In your third contention you stated certain groups, such as the KKK and the Nazis, would use moral obligation to influence their group into committing actions that are harmful. This does not refer to the average person. All the people, all the groups you stated, were not in their correct state of mind, as the three groups had leaders that were charismatic and manipulative, warping their minds to conform to each groups ideals. I have stated my argument and attack each of your points. Thank is all.