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

Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins by claiming I do not understand his position. He clarifies his case: that assisting someone is always morally right, and we expect people to do morally right actions. He then asserts, "My opponent states that morality is to broad a criterion, but this is untrue because I will use morality as the primary tool to reach duty therefore making it inherently valid." First, I'll attack Pro's premise that assisting someone is always morally right. Suppose I wanted to beat up Jack and steal his lunch money. However, I would need assistance to do so because Jack is bigger and stronger than I am. Would it be morally right for Pro to assist me in beating up Jack to steal his lunch money? If the answer is no, then I have already negated Pro's point. Clearly individuals are not always obligated to assist someone "in need." Second, based on my opponent's response it has become clear that he does not understand what I mean in saying that morality is far too broad of a criterion to use as a value in this debate. I'll explain it again for both my opponent and the audience. The reason morality is an insufficient criterion is because he and I are debating what the moral obligation is. Therefore, to use morality as a contention in support of the resolution (which is trying to establish a moral ideal) is circular. We are specifically debating WHAT IS moral, so Pro cannot simply assert that his position is the moral one. He must back that up with facts. He has to explain WHY his position is moral - not merely state it as fact. Next, my opponent begins attacking moral realism which I find a bit futile, specifically because that was a random tidbit about my own beliefs whereas I am using objectivism - not moral realism - as a counter to Pro's case. Nevertheless, I will address his concerns. Pro says that ethics deems it impossible to to derive an ought from an is. In making this argument, Pro has completely dismantled his own case. He has successfully negated his own position. If it is impossible to say what one OUGHT to do based on what IS, then we have absolutely no reason to accept the resolution. The resolution says that we OUGHT to help one who IS in need. In fact, Pro's original justification to uphold the resolution (Kant's categorical imperative) specifically adheres to the is/ought problem. According to Kant, we all experience an innate moral duty. He believed that our moral duty could be revealed to us through reason. He said that to act morally is to perform one's duty, and one's duty is to obey the innate moral laws [3]. Before I attack this moral criteria in general, note that Pro has contradicted himself in declaring competing points of view. If he is correct in saying that it is impossible to derive an OUGHT from an IS, then he cannot utilize Kant's theory in his favor. Why? Kant's theory upholds that what one ought to do (uphold their moral duty) is based on what is (one being conscious, free and able to reason). Contrary to Pro's claim, I argue that you can not draw a moral conclusion UNLESS you acknowledge what is. Without knowing what is, you cannot know what you ought to do. Kant would agree with that. My opponent should too. Once again, if his claim is that we have a moral obligation to help those in need, then clearly what we ought to do (help) is determined by what is (someone in need). Moving on, Pro denies that ethics are inherently egoistic. He writes, "While we can say they are somewhat egotistical my opponent negates Biological Altruism or if she doesn't she doesn't know biology." I find this comment to be rude and unnecessary by my opponent. I also find it amusing considering biological altruism in no way discredits my point. In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms at a cost to itself [4]. However I've already explained that one can act egoistically (according to their own wants) even if it requires a loss or sacrifice on their part. For example, if I only have a little bit of food and choose to starve so my child can live, then I will have undoubtedly chosen an action with a severe cost to myself. However, I will still have acted egoistically in choosing what I wanted to do. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal of biological altruism has been refuted. I'll explain further in the next round if need-be. My opponent continues, "Morals are absolute. This is the concept of morality." Once again, we are specifically debating the nature of morality so my opponent cannot make these bare assertions (which are his opinions) and use them as facts. An ethical subjectivist for example would say that morality is NOT absolute and in fact dependent on culture or other factors. Meanwhile, this statement proves that my opponent does not understand my position. Pro says I am arguing a relativist position, but that is simply untrue. I'm arguing in favor of OBJECTIVIST ethics for goodness sake; obviously this adheres to an OBJECTIVE moral standard. In the last round I explained exactly why that standard is limited to only one obligation. This obligation is what my opponent must focus on. Instead, Pro made an irrelevant point about animals (which I will not waste character space addressing). We are not debating morality as it pertains to animals; I don't have the space to explain why and hopefully I won't have to. Pro continues, "We do have reason to think following ones self interest is bad because (from Unitarianism we conclude bad) it leads to negative consequences." Here you'll see that Pro is trying to negate my point using utalitarianism; however, his previous notion of the categorical imperative specifically NEGATES utalitaranism. Again, Pro has put forth competing moral values with little to no regard for what these moral claims actually say. He cannot use both values in his favor considering they contradict each other. Pro continues to contradict himself when he says, "We have to consider the fact that being selfish maybe be good in the short term but long term we must be selfless because it is in ourselves interest to do so." He says being selfless is in our self-interest. Therefore, he agrees with my proposal of doing what is in our self-interest (without infringing on another's rights and subsequent happiness). Pro concludes, "If we expect people to do morally right actions then we are obligated to do such an action." I agree, and our moral obligation is limited to following what's in our rational self-interest (and makes us happy) so long as we do not infringe on another's rights. Objectivists agree that everyone is morally bound by this absolute. [3] http://members.fortunecity.com... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu...