Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

Thanks to Romanii for a fabulous debate! In this round I'll review Con's case and conclude with reasons to vote Pro. Due to character constraints, I may only touch on certain points. Please do not construe this as me dropping any argument; if my initial arguments may still outweigh Romanii's responses. CON's CASEC1: Moral NihilismCon agrees to my definition of nihilism: "the view that there is no right or wrong. There is no good or bad. "R1: TopicalitySo, let's examine the resolution. Because ought denotes moral desirability, let's phrase the resolution as this: It is morally desirable for individuals to help those in need. Pro's BOP, as show in R1, is the following: "Con must show help ought not to be rendered. " This means that Con must show that, on balance, it is not morally desirable to help those in need. Con's BOP is to show that it is morally desirable not to help others. If he argues that morality doesn't exist, then he cannot achieve his own BOP. Why? If there is no morality, then Con cannot show that help OUGHT not to be rendered. Therefore, we can TURN his own argument against him. This is the underlying reason why Nihilism is not topical. As I said last round: "By rejecting the idea that morality exists, Con has stepped outside of the ground the topic provided. " Con needed to stay within the grounds of morality, because Con needed to prove a moral claim just as much as I did. R2 and R3Con claims that Nihilism does not refute personal moral judgments. This is a MASSIVE concession, because Levinas's philosophy is all about how people are personally affected by others. Con also claims that Nihilism does not refute morality as it has been created or decided upon by society. Well, if Nihilism denies neither of these things, than how does nihilism negate? Morality, as defined in R2, means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. " So, if society says X is wrong, then X is immoral, because it is wrong by principles set up by society. I do not need to advocate for natural morality. I can affirm by showing that moral norms instituted by society call upon us to help others. So, if nihilism neither denies personal morality nor social morality, than it fails to refute anything. R4: Warrantless ClaimsCon says I am shifting the BOP. Unfortunately, this is false. Con claims that electrochemical reactions lack significance. He has noted that humans are far more complex than other objects; so why does that not add significance? If Con intends to make the claim that something isn't significant, he needs to warrant why that is. R5: PhysiologyCon is misinterpreting me. I am not comparing morality to the laws of math, I am comparing morality to intuition. Moral intuitions are subjective and individualized, just as our other senses are. My vision is different from yours, my sense of smell may be more or less acute that yours, etc. But, the subjectivity of moral intuitions does not somehow invalidate them. As long as moral intuitions exist, nihilism cannot be true. Why should our moral intuitions be valued less than our other senses or intuitions? If electrochemical processes lack significance from a natural law perspective, they still lead to the formation of right/wrong judgments, i. e. morality. C2: EgoismR1: PsychologyPro assumes that the majority of our interests our motivated by self-interest. But this seems largely unprovable. If I help someone, you could attribute it to both altruistic or egoistic motives. With mirror neurons, a biological support for altruism, how can we assume that egoism is necessarily our main motive? R2: Devolution to AltruismCon says that there are cases where helping others doesn't necessarily lead to any benefit to the egoist. But consider the parable of the lion and the mouse. The lion was trapped in a net, and the mouse freed him. While a bit preachy, this example underscores that even the least among us can offer something to the greatest among us. Since we never know when we may need someone's help, it pays for us to cultivate good relationships with everyone. This means being friendly, outgoing, and helpful. Barbara Herman of UCLA writes, "The natural limits of our powers as agents set the conditions of rational willing within which prudential calculations are made. It is because these limits are not transcended by good fortune that considerations of risk and likelihood are not relevant. Because we are dependent rational beings with true needs, we are constrained to act in certain ways (toward ourselves and toward others). Thus the argument to defeat the maxim of nonbeneficence goes through: the world of universal nonbeneficence is not a world that it is rational for any human agent to choose. ”So, the syllogism does hold up that: P1. The egoist seeks to maximize self-interestP2. Helping people is beneficial to oneselfP3. Helping people is in the egoist's self-interest Since Con concedes that egoism is moral in nature, it's incumbent obligations are moral. Therefore, the egoist has a moral obligation to help others. Likely, based on the forgoing analysis, the egoist should help people more than they do not, because it would maximize their potential allies. Even small acts of assistance count. R4: BOPCon never rebuts my point that I only have to affirm the resolution "on balance. " Extend this interpretation across. C3: Reduction of SufferingR2: OutcomesLet's look more at the second example. I claimed: "By intervening you could show the fat kid that he has some intrinsic value worth standing up for; this self-image affirming action may boost his own confidence levels, enabling him to stand up to the next person who bullies him. ”Con says that the kid will feel worthless, but I disagree. To use a personal anecdote, I knew a girl who was teased and bullied for her Southern accent. Keep in mind that in a school dominated by Northeasterners this was an extremely distinguishing feature. Myself and another student interceded on one occasion on her behalf, and she later confessed to us that our intervention had made her feel as if someone cared, and that she mattered. Her parents later told us that she hadn't attempted suicide that month, which was abnormal for her. Sometimes knowing that someone else cares is all that you need to get your life back together, to empower yourself. She never let the jibes get to her after that. R3: Devolution into AltruismPro says that helping some one is inherently an act of commission. But, as I have shown, commission and omission are essentially equivalent actions. Moreover, allowing someone to suffer can be an act of commission. Consider: I am helping someone with their homework. Rather than provide them with the answer, I force them to work it out themselves by saying, "you need to do this. " In this case, I am FORCING someone to do something. Forcing is an act of commission, not omission. Therefore, we have two reasons to reject Con's logic. R4: UtiltiyMy point here was that this is less of a reason to vote Con than it is a reason not to vote Pro. If Con wins this, then, it's not a compelling reason to vote for him. This logic is dropped. VOTING ISSUESLet's look at my case. Keep in mind, I only need to win one of these arguments to uphold my BOP:1. DUTY TO RESCUE Acts of omission and commission are essentially the same. Therefore, omitting to help someone is the same as committing a harmful act against them, provided that both the act of omission and the act of commission yield equal harms. Since not committing harms is morally desirable, so too is not omitting to prevent harms. 2. LEVINAS Sympathy leads to "ought" claims. If I sympathize with someone, I feel that it is the right thing to do to help them. Because morality is about principles of right an wrong, whether or not those principles are personal, societal, or natural, sympathy is about morality. Sympathy tells me that helping people is the right thing to do. Therefore, it is morally desirable to help people for whom I feel sympathy, i. e. people in need. 3. UTILITY Con conceded that maximizing pleasure was moral. Therefore, all I needed to show that there were more cases where I could help someone without causing more harm to myself in the process than not. I have done this by showing that small acts of kindness (like helping someone get something from a high shelf) are far more numerous than acts which "require a substantial amount of time and energy. " On to Con's case. What I need to do here is cast enough doubt on the validity of his points that you feel that helping others is morally desirable more than it is not morally desirable. 1. NIHILISM AND TOPICALITY Both of us are making moral claims (see R1 BOP). If morality does not exist, than neither side can win. Therefore, Con's own argument defeats him. Moreover, if both sides are required to make moral claims, an Con's point fails to do this, he has very clearly stepped outside of the ground provided to him by the resolution. 2. NIHILISM AND MORALITY Whether personal or societal, as long as their are standards of right and wrong, nihilism is false, since nihilism is defined as "the view that there is no right or wrong. " Con concedes that principles of right and wrong exist on the social and personal levels, invalidating his own argument. Also, moral intuitions lead to right/wrong judgments (like w/ sympathy), negating nihilism. 3. EGOISM AS ALTRUISM I have shown that more often than not egoism encourages us to help others. TURN: egoism affirms the topic. 4. SUFFERING EX Con cannot show that, more often than not, letting people suffer is good. HIs example doesn't support this. Finally, one generic point1. CON FAILS TO MEET BOP Con's BOP is to show that, more often than not, it is morally desirable NOT to help people (see R1). He has failed to do this in any of his contentions or points. Thank you for reading!