Analynne Madrid

LD CASENEG
11.20.11

Moral Obligation to Assist People in Need

I negate the resolution resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in
need.
I shall now define a few key terms:
People: The citizens of a country. Moral Obligation: an obligation arising out of
considerations of right and wrong. Assist: give help or assistance. Individuals: person: a
human being. In Need: A condition or situation in which something is required or
wanted.

My value for this round is morality. Morality is defined as the principles of what is right
and wrong. We need to look to morality this round because it is the very basis of
judgment itself. We cannot know what is best for an individual without knowing what is
good and bad for them as a whole. This leads to my value criterion of preserving
individual rights. We need to look to preserving the rights of individuals because it
ensures not only our rights as citizens, but as well as our right to life. The negative case
does not prevent the assisting of others, but to prioritize an individual over assisting the
needy. By assisting ourselves first it prevents an individual from harm. Second, assisting
individuals may cause unnecessary problems which may ultimately lead to bigger
conflicts. If one wants to help, one must learn how to take care of themselves first.

Morally one's task should be to do the right thing by improving oneself rather than
others first.

Moving on to my contentions:
Contention one: We do not have a moral obligation if an act violates our personal rights.
Singer states that
If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything
of comparable significance, we ought to do it.

This means that we only have a moral obligation to assist other if it does not
violate our personal rights. As stated before, the negative case does not wish to
ban all assisting of individuals in need, but to prioritize in assisting an individual
first before assisting others. This is important because this prevents us to have a
moral obligation to help one if it endangers our self. There is no drawn line
between assisting others and endangering ourselves. By enforcing our duty to
help another, it allows an individual to be prone to dangerous tasks, or tasks not
within our reach.

Contention two: It is not our business to do so. This is true because everyone has a
right to not be judged or interfered with. In fact, if everyone were to interfere with every
little need, there is no guarantee an individuals needs may be satisfied. It may even
escalate to an even bigger conflict. An article called Should the U.S. Attack Libya? Pros
and Cons 2011

discussed some options the U.S. had in Libya. In against the action of

interfering, the article stated:

Quadaffi resigning is not a clear path to a peaceful

democracy. Libya is a country with very few institutions in place. A large
percentage of Libyans are loyal to Quaddafi and it is
possible warring factions will fight for control. This can
lead to a civil war in which an extremist party can take
control. This is similar to what happened in Afghanistan
when Russia and the U.S. interfered in a countrys internal
affairs and then left.

This is important because it may It is also an act of freedom. If we are obligated to do

something against our will, it is violating not only our freedom, but it does not guarantee
a peaceful outcome.