Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need
Ever heard of the "Good Samaritan" rule? Referring to a parable told by Jesus in the Bible, the rule (a law in many places) stipulates that if you see someone in a life-threatening condition, such as being victimized in a crime or hurt in an accident, you are LEGALLY obligated to assist them as long as you are not endangering your own life. This idea rose to prominence after the deaths of Princess Di and Dodi Al Fayed in a car crash, and the pursuing paparazzi chose to photograph the victims instead of rendering aid. The law was also the centerpiece of a very underwhelming Seinfeld series finale, but I digress.
This topic should be approached with a couple of things in mind:
1. You are not limited to debating assistance in life-and-death situations. "Those in need" can be interpreted as those who are hungry or in need of a medical attention.
2. Avoid debates over the merits of the need. When we see people on street corners asking for change, it's easy to rationalize not helping them by assuming that they will spend the money on alcohol and/or drugs; that they're not truly in need. The given circumstance for this debate must be that the need is legitimate and not false.
3. You are looking at individuals and their moral obligations. Not countries, not societies - individual human beings. Neither are you looking at legal obligations, like in the case of Good Samaritan laws. This debate involves these two questions: 1. If you see someone in need, are you obligated to help them, and 2. If you don't, are you a bad person? Aff says "Yes." Neg says "No."
So, start writing your case and go do something nice for someone.
No comments:
Post a Comment