CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
8
No Yes
Debate Score:14
Arguments:11
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (6)
 
 Yes (5)

Debate Creator

Libertarian1(1080) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Do we have a moral obligation to help those in need

Challenger is affirming.

Libertarian1(1080)

No

Side Score: 6
VS.
ChuckHades(3197)

Yes

Side Score: 8

In order to properly debate, I must have my opponents means of judging need and his representation of morality. I do not wish to provide a counter-plan or counter-affirmative so my sole goal shall be the negation of my opponent if he accepts these terms.

Side: No
2 points

I accepted this? I don't remember doing that...

I'll have a go anyway. By a moral obligation, I mean that which is required to have a sense of morality. And by "need", I mean that which is essential, not just desirable. This is an important distinction.

Another important point is the origin of our morality. I believe that there does exist objective morality, which we have acquired through evolution.

This then brings us to understand the essence of evolution. It's survival of the fittest. This is commonly misunderstood to mean individualism, when the opposite is in fact true. Humans are group animals, and we have a higher chance of surviving if we work together in groups, or societies.

So what keeps these societies stable? Basic moral obligations, drummed into us through evolution. It is a moral obligation to not rape, to not murder, etc. And I believe it is also a moral obligation to help those in need.

Remember that a "need" is that which is essential. If we deprive societies of essentials, then the societies will collapse. From evolution, we can then say it would be much harder for the human race to survive in this anarchistic state.

My point is that humanity has evolved a moral obligation to help those in need, so that we don't jeopardize our survival.

Side: Yes
1 point

I accept your definition of need and do not disagree that morality is objective.

You say we have a higher chance to survive when in groups. I agree, but the nature of those groups are almost never moral. Dictatorships, slavery, other forms of coercion have been the majority throughout history. Companionship itself does not equal a moral arrangement.

I also disagree with your claim that the root of morality is evolution. Morality is the product of philosophy, and all evolution has given us is the capability to develop philosophy. And you do not credit the type-writer with the content of publications.(Hope the wording of that analogy works, something feels off about it).

Remember that a "need" is that which is essential. If we deprive societies of essentials, then the societies will collapse

But we are not discussing the essentials of society, a homeless individual who is lacking basic necessities is more within the description "those in need".

I would argue that no actual obligation exists. We respect societal law as a means of protecting ourselves(social contract according to Locke) and any and all duties are existent due to consent and thus are not binding moral obligations.

Side: No
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
2 points

You say we have a higher chance to survive when in groups. I agree, but the nature of those groups are almost never moral. Dictatorships, slavery, other forms of coercion have been the majority throughout history. Companionship itself does not equal a moral arrangement.

I agree with your point on dictatorships and slavery, but how many dictatorships are sustainable today? And how many booming societies employ slavery as a moral value? Unless I am mistaken, very few indeed, which supports the idea that a society with basic moral obligations will be more successful than one without, which in turn suggests that we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

I also disagree with your claim that the root of morality is evolution. Morality is the product of philosophy, and all evolution has given us is the capability to develop philosophy. And you do not credit the type-writer with the content of publications.(Hope the wording of that analogy works, something feels off about it).

This is somewhat true, but not entirely, I believe. Evolution has given us moral intuition, which is instinctive, and not dependent on rational thought. From this, we evolved moral judgement, which comes about through philosophy, and is dependent on rational thought. So whilst we can't overlook the role philosophy plays, it would seem that evolution is the root of our morality, with philosophy coming later. It's only a hypothesis, but it makes a lot of sense. Here's my source, only the first page is important, the second is about politics and whatnot.

But we are not discussing the essentials of society, a homeless individual who is lacking basic necessities is more within the description "those in need".

Then you should have specified. An entire society in need also fits under the definition "those in need".

I would argue that no actual obligation exists. We respect societal law as a means of protecting ourselves(social contract according to Locke) and any and all duties are existent due to consent and thus are not binding moral obligations.

I believe that my source on morality being genetic rebuts that. If you dismantle all society, we still have moral intuition, and thus we have moral obligations.

Side: Yes