Assisting others

Affirmative Case
I affirm the following:

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

Value: Philanthropy as I define by The American Heritage Dictionary as: The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.

Criteria: Altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

CONTENTION 1: SOCIAL NORMS ARE NO LONGER SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE ALTRUISM -- WE MUST RECOGNIZE A STRONG ETHICAL DUTY TO ASSIST
Amelia H. Ashton, Duke University School of Law, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, "Rescuing the Hero: The Ramifications of Expanding the Duty to Rescue on Society and the Law", October 2009
There once was a time when people weren't just individuals, but members of a society. They shared land, food, and property, helped each other in times of need, and did their best to make sure that their people would live and progress. But now, it seems, times have changed drastically. We all have this "every man for himself" sensibility, that makes us all arrogant and greedy. Gone are the times when a stranger could ask for assistance and be greeted with kindness; now the most likely response is a dirty look and a pompous shake of the head. Whatever the reasons for this sudden change in the behavior of the mass populous, it is undeniable that people now are much less willing to even acknowledge the existence of another human in pain. The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 is a very famous case of the unwillingness of people to help others even when their lives are endangered. The newspaper report of the murder stated that 38 people had heard and seen the attack, which lasted an hour, yet they did nothing. This is a disturbing and utterly repulsive example of a phenomenon which has been steadily growing. For whatever reason, people no longer see the need to help out another human being. When a person is in a position where his mere survival is dependent upon the decision of another to help, I would hope that someone would be there, but people no longer feel the need to acknowledge basic morality. This phenomenon has now been given a name by psychologists, "The bystander effect."
In social psychology this is the surprising finding that the mere presence of other people inhibits our own helping behaviors in an emergency. If the mere presence of other people stops us from helping, then that is a huge red flag in the societal structure. It shows that is IS indeed the norm in society to not help those in need, people choose not to help because they feel that if they do, they will looked down upon by others. Is it because we think of ourselves as better and more deserving of rights than the needy? Is it just a mindset that we must look out for ourselves and that we should not be involved in other people's suffering? We think in this way towards others as a way of dealing with our emotions; seeing another person in pain makes us uncomfortable, we feel a sense of pity and of sadness; but, if we choose to think of that person as lower than us, as undeserving, then that emotional burden is lessened on our part.

CONTENTION 2:SINGER PRINCIPLE: IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO PREVENT BAD EFFECTS WITHOUT SACRIFICING COMPARABLE HARMS TO OURSELVES WE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DO SO
Onora O’Neill, Philosophy Professor-University of Essex, 1980
Whether you are stuck with the dilemma of helping a person dying from hunger, or saving a child drowning in a pond, you should take into account the Singer principle which states:“if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” So in order to help the person starving to death, assuming I am just an average American with an average income, I would have to sacrifice 4 to 6 dollars in order to buy him a meal, whereas with the drowning child, I would have to jump in the pond, thus dampening my clothes. Both of these sacrifices seem reasonable considering the circumstances, in order to save lives, I must give away a few dollars, and get my clothes wet. I do not find either of these things morally comparable to that of another persons life, thus it is my obligation to sacrifice these things for them. When you have the ability to alleviate pain and suffering for a price that is not morally comparable, it is your duty to do so. When we all can recognize this, as the norm, as the right the to do, as something completely expected of you to do, then we can make a huge impact on the world, and spread compassion and assistance throughout the world. Even if we must make sacrifices at times, nothing is comparable to the sanctity of another person's existence. If we can ultimately make this a universal rule where everyone values helping others, we may no longer need to compare moral worth, for if we ourselves end up in trouble, there will be a hand there to help us.

CONTENTION 3: RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO ASSIST PEOPLE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BENEFIT SOCIETY.
Ken Levy, J.D., Columbia University Law School; Ph.D., Philosophy, Rutgers University, GEORGIA LAW, 2010
Think of all the crimes that go unreported every day due to unwillingness from the people. Think of how many of them involve violence, assault, even murder. If everyone recognized that it is socially and morally right to intervene, or even just report a violent crime, you would see a significant decline in the number of assaults and murders that happen every day. Communities have always conformed to the beliefs and morals of the people who live there. The towns that take a person in and then feeds and shelters them, is morally and socially much healthier than than the town that rejects that person and leaves him on the streets. In order to make a positive change and enforce healthy moral and social values, we must first recognize the need to assist people in need. When we can make the majority realize the necessity of helping others as a way of bettering themselves and mankind, we can then make a huge advancement in the search for peace and prosperity in the human race. If we teach a generation of people that helping the needy, and saving those that are within our power to save is the norm of society and what we expect from them, they will ultimately spread their views to others. If everyone can recognize the duty to not abandon each other and to see everyone as equal and deserving of comfort, suffering would be reduced drastically.

CONTENTION 4: CONCERN FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE CLAIMS OF PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF NATIONALITY IS A BASIC MORAL REQUIREMENT
Erin Kelly, Philosophy Professor Tufts University, 2004
The protection of human rights should be a goal that is shared worldwide. Concern for human rights is fundamental to a cross-culturally shared conception of international justice. The basic needs that a person is entitled to should be the focus of morality. When someone is in peril, when they are sick, hurt, or starving; we should be there to help them because it is our moral duty to assist anyone that is within our range of helping. If you were to see someone being beaten, someone clutching at their stomach from hunger pains, or someone just suffering alone and terrified, would you help them? In this society, we all might not do what is right all the time, but I'm sure that we can all sense that suffering is wrong and that it shouldn't be so prosperous in the world today. We all must recognize the moral obligation to assist people in need, so that we may someday, all live in peace and take care of one another as fellow men.