Immaculate Heart NC

The negatives burden is not to prove that no moral obligations exist, but rather that no moral obligations to assist those in need exist, as specified by the resolution. Because of this modifying clause in the resolution, we can not only focus of the moral obligation aspect of the resolution. because morality is a set of guidelines to live ones life by, moral obligations, such as obligations to oneself due to the pursuit of self preservation may exist, but it is the negatives duty to prove that there are no moral obligations to specifically assist those in need. The value is morality. Because the resolution focuses on moral obligation, we must focus the round on that as well. The standard is respecting self-preservation. Arneson Richard J. Arneson Forthcoming in The Ethics of Assistance: Morality, Affluence, and the Distant Needy, ed, Deen K. Chatterjee
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 2004 professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego since July, 1973. He received the Ph.D. degree from the University of California, Berkeley, 1975.

states: The needs of the self and of those loved by the self take strict priority over the needs of mere strangers, he continues many views of morality construe it as concerned with requiring individuals to cater to the well-being and freedom of other persons, but this undue emphasis on what we owe to others tends to obscure the issue of what each of us owes, as a matter of morality, to herself. Morality is best achieved on focusing on what is truly important when it comes to guiding ones life, which is self-preservation. By morally assisting those in need, the actor is being forced to donate their time and/or services to an individual completely unrelated to them. If your mother was drowning, you would not be saving her solely for the purpose of being a moral person, but rather because you mother means something to you. This may be morally praiseworthy, however it does not fulfill a moral obligation. Thus assisting those in need under the resolution puts strangers in front of ones self and family. By looking to self-preservation, this situation would not occur. Arneson continues Richard J. Arneson Forthcoming in The Ethics of Assistance: Morality, Affluence, and the Distant Needy, ed, Deen K. Chatterjee
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 2004 professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego since July, 1973. He received the Ph.D. degree from the University of California, Berkeley, 1975.

altruistic behavior is morally wrong when it conflicts with the requirements of selfrespect, which include valuing oneself as a human being of equal worth and taking care that one flourishes as a human being and as a particular human being. The latter involves self-authorship, which one achieves by developing preferences and aims that are genuinely ones own, defined by oneself, and having content that does not conflict with what is required to meet the persons objective needs as a human being. Thus not looking to self-preservation actually causes altruism to become immoral. Without looking to self-requirements and self-preservation, the resolution would turn in on itself.

Immaculate Heart NC

C1) Aiding others cannot be morally permissible when contradicting self-preservation Even if there are positive outcomes as a result of assisting those in need, there are rights abuses if the aid is thru coerced obligation MACHAN, 1995
Tibor, Professor of philosophy, Auburn University, PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC ILLUSIONS, p.121-122
The analogy with the jungle makes it appear that in human societies those who are losers do not deserve their fate, because the jungle houses dumb animals who are victims of their fate-their genes, the environment, the comparative physical advantage of their fellow beasts, and so forth. But among human beings

Human beings are capable of making good and bad choices in their conduct, and they are not helpless when they make the bad ones or the good ones. While no doubt some are unfortunate, indeed totally
another factor needs to be considered. unprepared-for example, those who are severely crippled, utterly deprived, or abjectly mistreated (sometimes by fellow citizens, sometimes by family, sometimes by the government itself) -most others are probably better regarded as capable of making the effort needed for a good showing in "the struggle for survival." Those who can make the effort but fail to do so do not deserve the compassion Keynes seems to believe everyone who fails to succeed

even if it is true that some who fail are helpless and it is the moral responsibility of others to help them, there are serious moral objections against requiring that assistance be given under the threat of force. In morality it is not generally possible that any act of compassion, kindness, generosity, honesty, decency, and so forth be undertaken involuntarily or under coercion. Rather, moral conduct must be undertaken as a matter of conscience and free choice; otherwise the act loses its moral worth. A society that forces its citizens, under the threat of punishment, to, help the less fortunate, is less, not more, compassionate.Even granting, then (in concert with Keynes), that compassion is a noble human trait, it does not follow that coercive regulation of human behavior fosters its development. Indeed, just the opposite conclusion should be reached.
deserves. Third,

Individuals have the ability to chose what decisions in life to make in order to find the best options for themselves. However, when forced by a moral obligation to assist others, the actor loses their ability to act of their own will. In fact, any moral assistance garnered off of the obligation must be thrown out because the only aid that is morally praiseworthy is moral work done by someone out of their free will and choice to complete such an action. C2) Aiding others leads to a malevolent world view that ends in paralysisor worse

Adams, Clinical Psychologist and Researcher

altruism is based on and reinforces, as Ayn Rand indicates, a malevolent universe premise. That is, its not just ones fellow man for whom one has no respect; it is the world, even the universe, in which we all live that he condemns. If altruism requires that one be on constant lookout for misery in man, then he must also seek out places where misery exists, especially misery caused by acts of nature. Events like hurricane Katrina are, to committed altruists, the essence of life on earth. Such disasters are the normal, the to-be-expected in life. To them, man is doomed because the world is doomed. We cant escape and the destructive path of the world cannot be changed. Therefore, give up and give in. Give yourself over. Submit. Obey. A Hopelessly Cynical Amorality: Upon reaching this point, one gives up on ethics altogether. Why bother pursuing any values or using any virtues if one lives in a world that is doomed to destruction and is surrounded by miserable little losers
A Nightmare View of Existence: More deeply, who cant help themselves? Why not go along to get along? Why not give up? Isnt it the meek who shall inherit the earth?

Immaculate Heart NC

Helping others focuses on a world that is out-to-get individuals. If one is always on the look out for the suffering individual in need, then you would have to seek out places where these individuals exist. However by seeing the situation, one must then realize that the world is in an inescapable state of chaos and doom to which there is no escape. Focusing solely on ones self and ones own goals does not lend credence to the malevolent world theory, and as such is the better way to live ones life to avoid a terrible doomed world. If not in theory, than in reality, a doomed world is true Rand states: AN OBLIGATION TO THE COLLECTIVE WILL END IN BLOODY DICTATORSHIP AND NUCLEAR WAR. RAND, 1966
Ayn, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p80

Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships. Yet this is what todays alleged peacelovers are willing to advocate or toleratein the name of love for humanity. It is obvious that the ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own good. Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule to brute force, they believed that the tribes wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. This history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankinds survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but the right to seize political powerto rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animaleven a cornered ratwill fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation.

In order to avoid a doomed world, protect an individuals own right to self-preservation, and achieve morality, the neg is the better option.