Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Its kind of weird to go first on neg but I guess this is how its gonna go. Id like this to be done in Ld format. If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that man will have to reject- Ayn Rand. My value is morality- Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Seeing as it is the key term in the resolution; I aim to bring the greatest morality. My value criterion is liberty- The quality or state of being free and a person's ability to pursue their own rational freedom. By upholding Liberty we will in turn uphold morality. For further clarification, I will provide the definitions which will create the backbone of my case. Need- Circumstances in which something is necessary in respect to survival and life function Ethical egoism- Moral agents ought to do what is in their self interest without the direct harm of others. Altruism- The belief in dis-interested and selfless concern for the well being of others Contention 1: The resolution is counterproductive (in respect to morality). Sub point a: Obligations degrade Altruism. As ayn rand stated in the ethics of emergencies- By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. As said in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy- Moral judgments that a person ought to do implies that the person has motivating reasons to do it, and that a person is likely to have such reasons only if he or she has implicitly entered into the agreement. The highest morality comes from being able to make choices free of coercion. Helping in need would certainly not be wrong but should not be made from fear of immorality. Humanity can progress when individuals assist people in need without prompting or obligation; more or less mandating assistance eliminates altruism. Thus a moral obligation is scarcely moral at all. Sub point b: By obligating people we are immoral Consider the situation: You could say that donating an organ or blood could be considered assisting people in need. You could also consider respecting someone's religion as a moral judgment that is morally right. Now given that this goes against moral codes in some religions, such as Jehovah's Witness, telling them they are morally obligated to assist when it goes against their morals is IMMORRAL period. Contention 2: In certain situation Ethical egoism shows greater morality than altruism. Again Ethical egoism is the theory that a person should do what benefits them in accordance with morality. Ethical egoism does not require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Because we cannot rely on Obligation of others to run our own lives we must look out for ourselves Let's look to Radley Balko's story of how altruism shows less benefit than egoism. Aaron Feuerstein oversaw a Massachusetts-based textiles company called Malden Mills. In 1995, three of Malden Mills' factories burned to the ground. Feuerstein was pronounced a corporate hero when he promised his workers that he would continue to pay their salaries out of his own pocket while he rebuilt the factories, even though his workers wouldn't be producing. Contrast Feuerstein with former GE CEO Jack Welch. Jack Welch laid off thousands of workers in his efforts to streamline and change the focus of the company. (Let's go back to Feuerstein.) Feuerstein's pledge to continue paying his workers eventually cost them their jobs, and cost Feuerstein his company. Feuerstein ran out of money, and Malden Mills was forced to declare bankruptcy. Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from a sleepy home-appliance company into an international mega-corporation that today is a leader in several industries. For every job he slashed, he eventually created dozens of new ones; it is Welch, not Feuerstein did the most good for the most people. And in conclusion the solution presenting the greatest good would have been never been shown under obligation. Contention 3: True altruism creates dependence. Ayn rand wrote- Altruism makes him feel that somebody will take care of him he feels it is not necessary for him to be productive or to take an interest in his own career. to the extent that he fails, he will become a first mortgage on the life of everybody else, which gives him an incentive not to succeed. Without altruism many more people would realize that there is no escape from the responsibility of carrying ones own weight, of providing for ones own survival and of being productive. If every moral person were to practice altruism only the dependent immoral people would benefit. Although helping people in need is an honorable thing to do, when we tell people that they are "obligated" to help, those on the receiving end will develop a laziness or dependence upon others. Now said person is ALWAYS in need help and ALWAYS want more. This makes them a serious drain on society