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

I affirm the resolution stating Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. I will be using the value of Morality. I will be supporting this with a value criterion of Utilitarianism. My value criterion upholds my value because by doing things that provide the most good for the most number of people, then morality will be achieved. I will be supporting this with three contentions. Contention 1:There is no downside to the moral obligation. Sub-point A: The Veil of Ignorance makes the moral obligation in the best interest of all. In John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, every situation is judged from the perspective of both sides, under a "veil of ignorance", which reshuffles everybody's position in society. For example, slavery is judged to be morally wrong, because the pain of the slave outweighs the benefits of the slaveholder, and the people in the scenario don't know which side of the situation they could be in. Immanuel Kant states this in simpler terms by stating that situations may arise in which we will eventually be the ones in need of help, and those are the grounds that this moral obligation exists. Because Rawls and Kant both state that this is in the best interest of all, then the moral obligation is utilitarian, and therefore achieves morality. Sub-point B: Singer and Kant put practical limits to the moral obligation. Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant state that the moral obligation does not apply when the following exceptions occur: when helping somebody puts yourself in need, when helping others causes you to neglect other obligations to society already in place, or if the person helping does not agree to the cause of the person in need. Because these statements suddenly make the obligation attainable and don't risk the loss of anything morally significant, that means that it upholds the good of lots of people, and therefore more than achieves morality. Contention 2: The obligation can be fulfilled despite personal limitations. Sub-point A: the most somebody can do in a situation is what counts. There is always a possibility in which somebody is in need of help, but the person obligated to help has limitations that prevent them from completely helping out the person in need. For example, somebody may be drowning in a lake, but the person who is obligated to help can't swim. That doesn't negate the obligation. On the contrary, the individual would instead be obligated to do the most that they can, such as call 911. Thus, the greatest good can still be achieved despite personal limitations, and morality is achieved. Sub-point B: the individual isn't required to solve the problem by themselves. As stated in the previous sub-point, the individual doesn't have to completely solve the problem given to them if they have personal limitations. This also goes for helping those who are without a home. For one person to devote their entire income by themselves to a homeless person is absurd. That is why there are charities in place. People aren't meant to help others on their own. Therefore any argument that my opponent makes against the practicality of being obligated to help others is null. Contention 3: Morality is objective Sub-point A: the Veil of Ignorance views situations with the best interests of all people in mind. Because, as explained before, the veil of ignorance reshuffles everybody's place in society to judge situations with complete objectivity, the veil can be best used in this debate to objectively judge situations, then, logically, the situations judged with the veil are ideal for utilitarianism to be upheld, and therefore the veil can be shown to be essential to upholding my value of morality. Sub-point B: Suffering is Undesirable. Everybody can agree that the suffering of an individual is bad. Everybody has a standard reaction to pain and suffering. When you see somebody hurt on the side of the road, there is a standard reaction of feeling bad, or at least pity for those in pain. By going off of this standard reaction to suffering, we can use this as a baseline for the definition of morality. By using this definition of morality in this debate, we can agree that there is no question of morality from person to person. In conclusion, the moral obligation stated in the resolution does exist, and therefore I have affirmed the resolution. To go over my contentions again, there is no downside to the resolution. Second, the moral obligation can be fulfilled despite personal limitations. Third, Morality is objective. Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot in today's debate.