People in need

I negate the resolution

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

My value for this case will be Consequentialism, which is defined by dictionary.com as: the theory that ethical decisions should be made on the basis of the expected outcome or consequences of the action.

My criteria is self-preservation, which is defined by dictionary.com as: preservation of oneself from harm or destruction.

The definition of MORAL as defined by the webster new world dictionary is: relating to, dealing with, or making the distinction between; right and wrong in conduct.

MORAL OBLIGATION: A duty which one owes and which he ought to perform but which he is not legally bound to fulfill.

EGOISM: the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest

Contention1: NEGATIVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DEJUSTIFY AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST PEOPLE
Hanfling, 1993
Everyone, no matter your situation, is born with rights to life, liberty, and happiness. All of their desires and freedoms are there for them to enjoy naturally, as long as no one chooses to interfere with them. People can enjoy their rights and live happily as long as their rights and freedoms aren't taken into the hands of others. Morally then, duty stems from not interfering with others liberties. But if it were an obligation to help people in need, it would take away our liberties of freedom and property. We would have to give up our time to assist people when we might otherwise choose not to. We may be forced to give up our property by giving money whenever we see someone on the streets and giving away everything we have to fulfill our obligation to everyone in need. We would be obligated to instead of spending time with our families and friends, to assist strangers. We could no longer focus on our own desires to enjoy ourselves but would instead have to put other peoples desires above our own. The obligation to assist people in need would completely destroy our rights to free will, making it impossible for us to choose what we want, rather, we would be at the beck and call of anyone who needed assistance anywhere in the world. If rights are to be meaningful checks, then they must allow the individual the freedom of choice.

Contention2: DIFFERING PERSONALITIES OF INDIVIDUALS MAKES ASSISTING EVERYONE EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE.
Driver, 1997
Individuals differ in many ways, they have different life goals, wishes, desires, needs, and views of the world. Individualism is a wide spectrum when you consider the over six billion people currently residing on the Earth, each of which differs in personality and desires. Peoples goals in life are all based upon the decisions of that person and which situation they currently are in. Since life goals differ and are based entirely on individual preference and life choices, it makes sense to hold each individual responsible for their own fate. Since egoism differs from person to person, there is no solid coherency between the needs and wants of different individuals. One person may wish to be helped in one way, another in a different way, and another perhaps, not at all. We couldn't account for each specific desire of every person on Earth when people want different things. If we all are the masters of our own destinies, then we should not have to intervene with the choices that others have made. An obligation to focus on other peoples lives would then take away the joys of the person who is made to assist others lives. They wouldn't have time to pursue their own dreams because they would be too focused on trying to help the overwhelming amount of the needy.

Contention3: MAKING ASSISTANCE AN OBLIGATION RATHER THAN A CHOICE, DESTROYS MORALITY.
Carney, 1973
When someone benefits society as a choice, he is usually praised for his unselfishness and dedication towards the cause he trying to better. But in comparison, when we see someone being forced to help society by something like court ordered community service, we don't find this act praiseworthy. This is because the choice to try to make a difference without personal gain is seen as a positive characteristic in society. Choice, is what makes and action a moral one, but when someone is obligated to help, rather than wanting to help, that takes away the good of the act and the benefits it provides to that person. The virtue of assistance can only exist when it is freely chosen, and not enforced by others. There can be no basis to say that we all MUST help when a great number of us do not desire to and can't even afford to. We can't give up on our own lives and duties to help others.

Contention4: ALTRUISM CAN CAUSE HARM TO YOU AND SOCIETY.
Coate, 1995
Altruism requires that we help people in need no matter the cost, it is purely unselfish and focuses only on others. This is a dangerous system when you consider the potential harm from helping in every way possible. Giving up everything that you've worked for to the needy, takes away your own ability to live a stable life.When you sacrifice your time, money, and possessions to further the cause of helping others, it harms you and your community in the end. When you give until you yourself are in peril and need assistance, it thereby contradicts the obligation. There should be no obligation to provide aid because the cost could be too great. When trying to assist in a situation as a bystander of a violent crime, you could potentially be endangering yourself and others, making the situation worse. An obligation to assist should only exist if it helps to alleviate harm in a long span of time. Giving aid could potentially create dependency of the one providing help, creating a disincentive for people to help themselves. When people rely on others, rather than on self reliance and initiative, they no longer add to the benefit of society. But in the end, it is questionable whether or not we even have enough resources to help everyone on the planet.