The Rich Have a Moral Obligation to Donate to the Poor - *Fall Tier Tournament - Round 1*

Let me take a minute to discuss my style. Usually in a 4 round debate this is what I do. First round I accept the argument Round 2 is where I make my opening arguments and only opening arguments. My opponent can't see my arguments in round 2 to make rebuttals, when he posts his arguments. I think it's unfair to the instigater if I get an extra round of rebuttals. I also think it's unfair to whoever accepts the debate to have less characters for opening arguments. Even if I have extra characters available for a rebuttal I still think it's in bad taste to make one in round 2. The instigater can only make rebuttals here so as the person going last I feel like it's unfair to launch into counter rebuttals and have an extra round of counter rebuttals. This is where I touch on counter rebuttals and offer some sort of recap for the debate I wouldn't mind hearing the judges' opinions on this but it's something I do not to be unfair but to ensure fairness. INTRODUCTION Whether you agree or disagree with me what I've provided is a step by step rational approach to morality. My opponent has done no such thing. His entire argument is logical fallacy after logical fallacy. The biggest logical fallacy which actually makes up the meat of his argument is a fallacy known as Begging the Question, or more popularly known as circular reasoning. Geogeer starts by assuming the conclusion is true. The conclusion being that what society deems as moral behavior is moral behavior. He states this several times. such as him using the example of rape for shock value (something I'd never do). More on this later. My opponent has failed to uphold his end of the resolution. He hasn't shown that the rich have a moral obligation to donate to the poor. His argument is that we should have compassion. He fails to show how donating to the poor is the best way to show that compassion. Why is donating to the poor better than spending the same amount of money developing a more affordable computer that will give poor people more access to technology? My argument does uphold my end of the resolution. I've shown a moral code that would show people can behave in a moral way while being completely selfish. Counter Rebuttals VALUE Me and my opponent agree here. However I make the next logical step which is that people determine the value of something through the pain and pleasure principle. There is no denying that is how we determine the value of something. It's also how we determine if something is good or bad to start with and my opponent unwittingly furthers my arguments with his own rebuttals. PAIN AND PLEASURE My opponent states that eating fatty food can be incredibly pleasurable but be bad for our health. I've actually already addressed this point and similar ones before he even brought them up but I digress. This is where what a person values comes in. If a person values the present over the future they may be willing to subject themselves to some pain in the form of a heart attack later for some pleasure in the form of a burger today. Or if somebody values the future they may be willing to subject themselves to some pain in the form of exercise now for more years of pleasure and health. For some reason when people hear of using pain and pleasure as a foundation for morality they assume that it falls entirely in the form of instant gratification, but that's not the case. You can also make moral judgements by acting in accordance with some combination of valuing instant or delayed gratification. Either way it's still using the pain and pleasure principle. MORALS "When we discuss morals, only a small part of moral discourse is on the self, but rather morals are generally more focused on interpersonal dynamics and actions. " This is one of those claims that go unsubstantiated. One of many. Morals don't extend beyond the self not now not ever. It's just an illusion. My opponent has failed to even show why morals should extend beyond the self other than making statements that assume his version of morality is correct (circular reasoning). We do stuff for others because it gives us pleasure. It makes us feel good about ourselves. Sometimes we do stuff for others to reduce our pain because we have empathy and we sympathize with them. Sometimes we do it because, we are hoping for reciprocation. I repeat morals aren't now based on anything outside of the self and never have been. "A fundamental attribute of humanity is our empathy for one another. Our ability to understand the needs and emotions of others and to act on those needs not out of self-interest, but solely out of care for the other. " Our empathy does most certainly play an impact in how we behave towards one another, but it isn't a moral value and my opponent has failed to explain how empathy is a moral attribute other than to say we have it. Empathy doesn't help us determine the value of something. That is pain or pleasure. If our empathy causes us to feel bad for somebody we may do something about it, but it isn't our empathy that is the moral value but the pain or pleasure we get from having that attribute. We see somebody in pain have empathy and now that pain we have from seeing that causes a negative value so we do something to help. You see it's not the empathy it's self that causes us to act but it is the pain or pleasure we recieve from having empathy. "Love (agape) is ultimately an act of the will to sacrifice for the good of the other. Sacrifice is ultimately the opposite of pleasure. It is an act of foregoing that which would give us pleasure for a greater good - in this case the good of another. " This is something I find extremely repulsive. Love isn't about sacrifice. If I love a woman and buy her a flower it's not an act of sacrificing my money. It's completely selfish and it's the joy seeing a smile on her face brings me. I'm not sacrificing my time to go on a date. I'm enjoying my time. If I donate a kidney to help somebody I love survive a while longer it isn't a sacrifice it's a selfish act. I love them so I want them to live longer so we can have many more fun filled days together. When Romeo and Julliet (spoiler alert) killed themselves it wasn't a sacrifice. It was because their feelings were so strong for one another that they couldn't bare the pain of being without each other. Love isn't sacrifice. If you honestly feel like working your butt off so your kid can eat is a sacrifice than you have problems. It's not a sacrifice it's a selfish act. You love your child and it would bring you pain to see him go hungry. Everything comes back around to the pain and pleasure principal. The reason my opponent is having such an incredibly difficult time with this topic is because I'm arguing a truism. HISTORY My opponent has made an appeal to tradition. His quote about an example of this appeal that doesn't correspond with his argument is completely beside the point and a red herring. What he's done is shown how society's view of morality has changed over time. This snap shot of morality through the ages to show that society is correct about morals or that we should surrender to the herds (society) view of morality. I understand how society came to the current moral traditions. However that isn't evidence of anything but instead, it's a bunch of words meant to be disguised as evidence. "if avoidance of pain is indicative of a moral action, then every woman should have an abortion to avoid the pain of child birth. This base level of reasoning means humanity should become extinct. This is in direct opposition to my contention that morality is that which best serves the species. However, if con admits that some pain to achieve a greater good is true he has invalidated the moral basis for his argument and supported mine. " I'd say that a woman who chooses not to abort believes that the joy of raising a child significantly outweighs the pain of child birth. This isn't the first time I'm bringing up delayed gratification I've done it in prior rounds as well. TRUE NATURE My opponent brings up true nature several times and even underlines it in this round. This is just a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a way for my opponent to reinterpret the evidence to support his position. I've shown that my moral system is more closely and better aligned with nature, so my opponent has to say well it's not true nature. My opponent has stated that the moral system that best aligns with what's in our nature should be the one we use and the way of determining morals that I've proposed shows that the rich aren't morally obligated to donate to the poor. CONCLUSION The moral system I proposed shows that there is no moral obligation for the rich to donate to the poor. The one my opponent proposed at best shows that the rich should help the poor but fails to show why donating money would be superior to the millions of other options. Such as spending your money advocating for the rights of poor people or creating a product that benefits poor people. Also my opponent has failed to even address how donating to the poor is better than say donating to quadripalegics or cancer patients. I've done enough to show that my opponent's system of morality is based on smoke and mirrors while mine is based on pure logic. I should win based on this, but even if the voters somehow decide to say that pro had put forward the better system of morality, I should still win based on the fact that my opponent really failed to hit at why donating to the poor causes the greatest bang in terms helping for the rich person's buck.