Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

West Coast Publishing

2011 LDMoral Obligation

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

Hanne Jensen

Whitman College

Summarized Topic Description

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

This topic, more than most Lincoln-Douglas resolutions, will depend very much on how the affirmative and negative choose to define the separate words in the resolution. More likely than not, debates on this topic will whittle down to what are individuals rights and responsibilities as human beings and as members of a society. Legally, there is little doubt that most places in the world do not require any action to be taken by individuals for the pure benefit of others, which is why this question falls into the moral spectrum.

Understanding what constitutes morality and a moral obligation is difficult because morality means different things to different people. The various religions and cultures which compromise America, much less the world, show clearly how peoples difference of opinions on the matter of what is right and wrong can show through their laws and customs. In order for a resolution such as this to have any weight as a moral maxim, it should be universal. This poses a dilemma because of the disagreements on the matter.

In addition, the potentially (but not explicitly) limiting term of individuals allows for a variety of interpretations. Individuals could mean persons acting solely individually or individuals contributing to a group or organization in order to accomplish assistance on a larger scale. It could be argued that the use of the world individuals in the resolution means the exclusion of government or organizational involvement (that individuals rather than groups have this moral obligation) or merely that individuals must have an involvement in the process, as there is no overt mention of mutual exclusivity.

Determining the need of people can be tricky: in order to establish that a person is in need requires that either the person in question consider themselves to be in need or that a third party observes them and deigns them to have a need. Both possibilities pose a problem for the affirmative and negative as one would mean that only people able to freely accept and express their need would be considered able to accept assistance, and the other would allow for the imposition of alien values and judgments on people who may not want, understand, or even need their assistance.

The very concept of assistance is riddled with its own problems as it does not specify whether or not a person is required to make a substantial difference in the lives of people in need. Assistance could mean a comprehensive and permanent solution to a need or it could mean a small but well-intentioned gesture of good will. Clearly, both the negative and the affirmative debaters have their work cut out for them as far as interpreting and defining the resolution before even debating its merits and shortcomings.

The affirmative debater would be best served by focusing on the natural equality of all people and the ability of almost all individuals to do something to help those in need. Keeping the expansive term assistance down to helping others help themselves or mitigating extremely forceful pressures on the needy as well as interpreting people loosely, allowing it to be persons the individuals know or come into contact with daily life would make it difficult for the negative to argue that there are not moral obligations to do small generosities. The affirmative could successfully argue that it is more important for the individual to become involved with the fabric of humankind in a positive way than it is to solve every major world problem.

In contrast, the negative should argue that while it is laudable for individuals to assist others in their community and elsewhere that people have no moral obligations to assist others; the very reason that it is a good thing to do and praiseworthy is because it is going above and beyond what is required. Additionally, the negative has the ability to make many arguments of how individual involvement with be either ineffective or even counterproductive to the overall goal of assisting the needy. The negative would do well to take the side of consequentialism, that all the good intentions in the world wont necessarily evoke any real change in the landscape of the modern world; it is more important to cause change than it is to have an ethically motivated populace.

Once the angles of the debate are established, it will (as usual) come down to the values. Not getting too bogged down in advantages or disadvantages to practical implementation of either case, truly hammering home the values will be the key to success in a large number of rounds. Make sure they are clearly defined, weighed, and impacted out throughout the entire speech.

Definitions

Individual

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual)

a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group

Bing Dictionary (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+individual&FORM=DTPDIA)

1. specific person:a specific person, distinct from others in a group

"belief in the individual's right to self-expression"

2. any person:a human being, or a person of a specified type

"a panel consisting of four individuals"

"a very unfortunate individual"

3. separate thing:a separate entity or thing

4. [biology]separate organism:an independent organism separate from a group

"The plant part contains the embryo, which gives rise to a new individual."

Although individuals is clearly not the most contentious term in the resolution, it is important to decide whether or not to emphasize that individual is separate from a group. If so, the Merriam-Webster definition is probably the best bet, but if the desired goal is to not draw attention to potential mutual exclusivity arguments, it may be preferable to go with Bings second definition.

Moral obligation

The Electric Law Library (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m142.htm)

A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfil.These obligations are of two kinds 1st. Those founded on a natural right; as, the obligation to be charitable, which can never be enforced by law. 2d. Those which are supported by a good or valuable antecedent consideration; as, where a man owes a debt barred by the act of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law, though it subsists in morality and conscience; but if the debtor promise to pay it, the moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for the promise, and the creditor may maintain an action of assumpsit, to recover the money.

Moral

Bing Dictionary (http://www.bing.com/dictionary/search?q=definition of moral &qpvt=definition+of+moral+&FORM=Z7FD)

1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave

2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done

3. according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just

"a moral victory."

4. encouraging goodness and decency: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably

5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large

6. able to tell right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge

7. based on personal conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof

"moral certainty"

Obligation

Bing Dictionary (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=definition+of+obligation&form=QB)

1. duty: something that must be done because of legal or moral duty

2. state of being obligated: the state of being under a moral or legal duty to do something

3. gratitude owed: something that somebody owes in return for something given, e.g. assistance or a favor

4. [law] binding legal agreement: a legal agreement by which somebody is bound to do something, especially pay a specified amount of money

5. [law] legal contract: a legal document such as a mortgage or bond that contains the terms of an obligation, usually including a penalty for failing to fulfill it

Included here together are the definitions of moral obligation, moral, and obligation. The first definition of the combined terms is probably the most useful as it considers both terms in relation to each other as opposed to separately. Needless to say, it also will take less time to explain in a round. If, however, the case is constructed so to have significant debate into what constitutes a moral action or what an obligation is, it might be advisable to define each word individually.

Assist

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assist?show=0&t=1310331776)

transitive verb: to give usually supplementary support or aid to

intransitive verb: to give support or aid

The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assist)

To give help or support to, especially as a subordinate or supplement; aid: The clerk assisted the judge by