Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Throughout the world, there are many different different moral standards set through society. In many of these cases, individuals will help one another in order to fill their obligations as a person. This brings me to the resolution: Resolved: That individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Before I begin , I believe it is nessisary to define the following key terms. Individuals: a single human being, as distinguished from a group. Moral:of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong Obligation:something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom. Let me present my core value for today's round. Social Contract. Our moral framework as individuals comes from the social contract. THe social contract contends that humans are self-interested evil creatures. Therefore, we sacrifice all our rights to a sovereign (government, dictator, whatever), and that sovereign decides upon a fair system of obligations and punishments that everyone abides by. The extension of this point is that the sovereign cannot institue a punishment for not being altruistic because there is no corresponding right which is surrendered to the sovereign. Therefore, no moral obligation arises. Supporting my core value for today is my criteria, morality. That standards set for morality are different throughout our world. Therefore, we must use the morality of human nature as our referance. The morality of human nature states that people(us) generally want to help others as we have helped them. For this debate, I would like to state the following two contentions, 1. We cant blame individuals who fail to assist. AND 2. Obligation to assist is over-demanding. Lets begin with my first contention, We cant blame individuals who fail to assist. As shown n my core value, we the people have given up our moral rights to our government, for them to decide for us. Since then, they have made laws set to keep order and for everyone to make moral choices. One of these laws is a Fail To Assist law, made in every state to help one another. For example, Since automobiles first hit the road, states have developed a range of laws about driving. Driving a car is considered a legal privilege, not a right. As part of that privilege, state laws impose both limitations and duties on drivers whenever they get behind the wheel. One of these duties is the duty to stop and help when you've been involved in a car crash or accident. While each state's "stop and render aid" law differs slightly, almost all states impose a legal duty on drivers to stop, identify themselves, or provide assistance whenever they're involved in a car crash. Assistance laws are sometimes referred to as "hit and run" laws because they are designed to prevent people from leaving an accident scene. Being involved in a car accident doesn't always mean that someone acted illegally or committed a crime. However, any accident can result in criminal charges if a driver chooses not to stop, identify, or provide help. It's not the accident that creates the crime, it's the driver's actions afterward that do. Punishments for not rendering aid may be jail time,fines,restituton,probation,and and on some occations, death. Which brings the question, Should we be punished because simply because we failed to render some sort of aid. In 2003, multiple cities reported a dramatic increase in criminal charges, 51% of failing to render aid. So lets say a fellow classmate or worker is choking. You do everything in your power to help him/her, but it isnt enough to save that person. Does it fall upon you, or the choking victim? Finally we go to my second and final contention, obligation to assist is over demanding. As you may know, we way we make money, achieve life, and hope for a utalitarianism, depend on how the economy is. Because of this, we have depended on our government on multiple things. One of these is to solve EVERY problem in the nation we face. An example is the United States constitution. Though made to give all equal rights to the people and government, it is belived by 86% of americans that it is their power to take control and, as shown in my second contention, help render aid to us. It's more than a little disturbing to look around and notice the degree of dependence we have for the federal government. Is it really the role of the federal government to manage the affairs of each individual citizen? As is evidenced by the stimulus package, the bank and auto bailouts and now health care, we are a nation in real danger of becoming entirely too dependent upon our government. I call this phenomenon the "baby sitter mentality." By this I mean that we are so used to having someone else "fix" our every problem that we now expect the federal government to take care of us - no matter what. By thinking this way, each of us regresses into a child-like state in order to be cared for by someone else. The 19th-century French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted this trend on the horizon while traveling in the recently formed United States. Even then, he warned of the dangers of becoming perpetual children of the state instead of a nation of the self-governed. How long will we be able to maintain this attitude of choosing to be cared for before it turns into forced submission? The federal government does, and rightfully so, provide for the common good of the country and, thereby, her citizens. However, there is a huge distinction between providing for the common good, so that all citizens may freely seek to achieve it for themselves, and attempting to provide the common good itself. Each time the federal government intervenes in the lives of private citizens (bailouts, individual health insurance mandates, etc.), it sets a dangerous precedent with regard to the power of the federal government to control the interactions, affairs and, more to the point, well-being of individuals. Lately, we've had problems with "helicopter parents" in our country. These are the parents who "hover" so close over their children that they never learn to do anything for themselves and are robbed of their own self-reliance. It makes sense, then, that we have the same problem with our federal government. We've gone running to the baby sitter for help for so long that we have forgotten how to fix anything on our own. So, instead, many spend beyond their means and neglect important aspects of life, knowing that someone else will bail them out, slowly forgetting that our very nature as Americans is to be self-reliant and independent. We become content that we are incapable of functioning without the approval and direction of the federal government. Lest we forget that we created it, and we control it. FDR commonly justified his sweeping social reforms by quoting, "Necessitous men are not free men." He reasoned that if the federal government freed the American people of want, they would be truly free to seek happiness. However, in providing everything, haven't we created a society that is in constant need of some type of help? So far, we've had federally funded bailouts, handouts and, on the horizon, government-run health care - and that's just 2009. THink of the increase in the future years. As shown in this contention, Americans are too dependent on our government, and the society around us. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... http://www.freerepublic.com...