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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Value: Human Agency Value Criterion: Ethical Egoism Edward Regis explains Ethical Egoism as: "Ethical egoism is the view which holds both that one ought to pursue one"s own well-being and happiness and that one has no unchosen moral obligation or duty to serve the interests of others". Contention 1: Ethical egoism is the best way to achieve justice First, it must be recognized that human beings have inherent value because we were given the ability to function as autonomous agents who pursue their interests in life. Thus, a person"s single greatest duty (from the point of view of respect for human worth) is first and foremost to pursue his own goals in life and exercise the intelligence and freedom bestowed upon all humans. Ayn Rand explains in her work "The virtue of Selfishness": "Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. " This duty, and the corresponding negative obligation not to interfere with the ability of others to live their lives, is the only true moral obligation. If another individuals is in need of assistance, the burden is on the government or aid organizations to offer assistance, not on free willed individuals. Indeed, placing excess moral obligations on the conduct of individuals stifles human creativity and undermines human worth. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will now move onto the affirmative case. First, my opponent's value is altruism. There is a big problem with altruism, but first, let me state one thing about Ethical Egoism. While Ethical Egoism is about doing things that are in one's own self interest - it doesn't imply that people shouldn't help other people. For example, If I like to volunteer, and it makes me feel good inside, I can go volunteer. It's in my own interests that I'm doing so, but I'm still helping other people. Or, if I need volunteer hours in order to get into a particular college, i'll volunteer - It's for my self interest, but it also helps the public. In order to prove why altruism is flawed, consider the following scenario: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On a flight I took the other day, I watched the stewardess give the usual five minute safety presentation, and for the first time stopped to think about the implications of some of her words, which I had heard hundreds of times before without noticing them. In the event the cabin depressurizes, oxygen masks will automatically drop from the ceiling. The stewardess warned us to make sure we put our own masks on before attempting to help our seatmates with theirs. This is part of an FAA-approved script, from which they never depart in making these presentations. I imagine that this warning is aimed at the following scenario. The cabin depressurizes and anyone without a mask will become unconscious in moments. Your seatmates are children or otherwise helpless. If you attempt to help them without securing your own mask first, you will pass out without succeeding and everyone will die or become incapacitated. If you put your own mask on, your seatmates may pass out but will revive as soon as you have placed their masks on their faces. Thus, your attempt to help them will only succeed if you help yourself first. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ First of all, Ethical Egoism is pursuing one's own self interest, and then thinking about others is ok, if one wants to do so. Obviously in this scenario it can be seen why Ethical Egoism is superior to Altruism. Next, my opponent's Value Criterion Utilitarianism. There is also a huge problem with utilitarianism: 1. A problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to an "end justifies the means" mentality. If any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it, a true ethical foundation is lost. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. If that were so, then Hitler could justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race. Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying to achieve a communist utopia. 2. Utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse. 3. A third problem with utilitarianism is predicting the consequences. If morality is based on results, then we would have to have omniscience in order to accurately predict the consequence of any action. But at best we can only guess at the future, and often these educated guesses are wrong. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent's only contention is that, "Helping others is a necessary act if we wish to maximize positive value. " "Some ethicists argue that rich nations have no obligation to aid poor nations. Our moral duty, they claim, is always to act in ways that will maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering. In the long run, aiding poor nations will produce far more suffering than it will alleviate. Nations with the highest incidence of poverty also have the highest birthrates. One report estimates that more than 90% of the world's total population growth between now and the year 2025 will occur in developing countries. Providing aid to people in such countries will only allow more of them to survive and reproduce, placing ever greater demands on the world's limited food supply. And as the populations of these countries swell, more people will be forced onto marginal and environmentally fragile lands, leading to widespread land degradation, further reducing the land available for food production. The increase in demands on the limited food supply combined with a decrease in the production of food will threaten the survival of future generations of all peoples, rich and poor. "[1] I apologize for this quote being so long, but if my opponent reads it, he will understand why assisting hurts more than it actually helps people. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent is moving, so I wanted to give him a lot of before he would have to respond to my arguments, which is why i'm posting this so late. I hope to have a good debate. Vote con! ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: [1] World Hunger: A Moral Response; Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, Santa Clara University