Helping people is undoubtedly an honorable thing to do in some instances; however, by no means is it morally obligated all the time. Therefore, I negate the resolution “Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.”
Individual (The New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2001): A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family Moral Obligation (Black’s Law Dictionary): a duty that is based only on one’s conscience and that is not legally enforceable Assist (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary): to give usually supplementary support or aid to People in Need (New Oxford American Dictionary): those in the state of lacking basic necessities such as food or money or requiring help or support I accept my opponent’s definitions.
The negative burden is only to prove that the moral obligation does not exist as a principle. By no means does this impair individuals from engaging in this honorable behavior in certain instances when it is required, it simply means that this action is not morally obligated as a general universal principle.
My Value is that of the Preservation of Society. Political philosopher John Locke writes in Chapter Eleven of his Two Treatises of Government that quote "the first and fundamental natural law...is the preservation of society and of every person in it." Natural law is one of the fundamental principles of Locke's philosophy. It overrides all other values because natural laws come before all other values. The negative will show that a moral obligation to assist those in need does not exist as it impairs the preservation of society and that instead the it is society's duty to ensure this natural law is fulfilled.
My Criterion is John Locke's Social Contract. The Social Contract is a hypothetical agreement between individuals to form a society. They form into a society in order to preserve their property and ensure that the society as a whole has their natural rights enlarged and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document