2011/2012 Nov/Dec LD Topic: Assisting People In Need

Cost: 25.00

About the Product

Author(s) and/or Contributor(s): Stephen Babb, Jane Kessner, Christian Tarsney, Chris Theis, Adam Torson
Description: Topic Analysis Essays and Evidence on the Nov/Dec Assisting the Needy Topic. Issues discussed include whether there is a moral obligation to act beneficently, whether individuals can be obligated to help those experiencing poverty around the globe, legal obligations to rescue or render assistance in an emergency, theories of distributive justice, and much more.

File Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY STEPHEN BABB 8
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JANE KESSNER 18
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY 32
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY ADAM TORSON 55
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE 70
MORAL DUTY 70
THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-BENEFICENCE CANNOT BE RATIONALLY WILLED 70
BECAUSE WE REQUIRE OTHERS TO ACHIEVE OUR OWN ENDS WE MUST ACCEPT A DUTY OF BENEFICENCE 71
THE OBLIGATION OF MUTUAL AID DERIVES FROM THE DUTIES OF RESPEC FOR PERSONS 72
WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PROMOTE THE ENDS OF OTHERS 73
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE CREATES AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 74
KANT REJECTS THE IDEA OF SUPEREROGATION 75
KANT’S CONCEPTION OF IMPERFECT DUTY DOES NOT ALLOW US TO FORGO BENEFICENT ACTS BECAUSE WE HAVE SATISFIED OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS 76
WE DO NOT NEED TO CATEGORIZE ACTIONS AS SUPEROGATORY RATHER THAN OBLIGATORY TO APPRECIATE AND ENCOURAGE EXCEPTIONAL MORAL ACTIONS 77
THE FACT THAT OTHER INDIVIDUALS DO NOT FUFILL THEIR OBLIGATIONS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE OBLIGATION TO AID THOSE IN NEED DOES NOT EXIST 78
MORALITY OF CONTRACTS 79
CONSTRACTUALISM PLACES A STRINGENT OBLIGAITON TO AID ON INDIVIDUALS 79
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT REQUIRES A DUTY TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 80
IN EXCHANGE FOR PROTECTION BY THE COMMUNITY INDIVIDUALS ARE OBLIGATED TO ASSIST OTHERS 81
HEGELIAN ETHICS JUSTIFIES AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 82
IN ORDER FOR THE STATE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT BECOMING OPPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS MUST ASSIST OTHERS TO HELP MAINTAIN THE PEACE 83
CAPITALISM 84
THE CHOICES PEOPLE MAKE IN THE FREE MARKET ARE NOT ALWAYS FREE 84
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 85
NATURAL DUTIES SUCH AS MUTUAL AID APPLY REGARDLESS OF CONSENT 85
ACTS WHICH ARE TYPICALLY NATURAL DUTIES ONLY BECOME SUPEREROGATORY WHEN THE ACT WOULD IMPOSE A GREAT COST ON THE AGENT 86
MUTUAL AID IS A NATURAL DUTY 87
IT IS MORALLY ARBITRARY TO ALLOW SOCIAL GOODS TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY THOSE ARRANGEMENTS ARISING SPONTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF OUR NATURAL LIBERTIES 88
LIBERAL ATTEMPTS TO SECURE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND SO GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY ‘DESERVE’ STILL FALL VICTIM TO MORAL ARBITRARINESS 89
JUSTICE REQUIRES AIDING THOSE IN NEED BY REDRESSING ARBITRARY INEQUALITY 90
THE NATURAL DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT IS NEITHER JUST NOR UNJUST; HOW INSTITUTIONS DEAL WITH IT IS 91
POSSESSING CHARACTER IS MORALLY ARBITRARY; IT CANNOT JUSTIFY SUPERIOR ENTITLEMENTS 92
THE EXERCISE OF VIRTUES LIKE EFFORT IS A MORALLY ARBITRARY ENDOWMENT AND SO CANNOT CREATE A JUST ENTITLMENT 93
THE ABSENSE OF INDIVIDUAL DESERT CREATES A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF REGARDING TALENTS AS A COMMON ASSET 94
COMMUNITARIANISM 95
WE ARE EACH OBLIGATED AS MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY OF MUTUAL AID TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO OTHERS 95
THE LIBERAL CONCEPTION OF OBLIGATION IS TOO THIN; PEOPLE HAVE MORAL OBLIGATIONS BASED ON THEIR PARTICULAR COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS, NOT JUST MUTUAL CONSENT 96
COMMUNAL MEMBERSHIP CREATES OBLIGATIONS OF SOLIDARITY 97
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY UNDERMINES COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY 98
PUBLIC PROGRAMS TO HELP THE NEEDY SOLIDIFY COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY 99
INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO PRACTICE VIRTUE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY 100
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS SYMBOLICALLY AFFIRM THE VALUES OF SOLIDARITY AND HUMAN DIGNITY 101
INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND LIBERTY ARE TWO OF MANY VALUES WE WISH TO SYBOLICALLY AFFIRM, INCLUDING SOLIDARITY AND HUMANE CONCERN FOR THOSE IN NEED 102
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO HELP THE NEEDY ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SYMBOLICALLY EXPRESS THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY 103
UTILITARIANISM 104
THE ARGUMENT FOR GIVING AID RESTS ON A SERIES OF VERY PLAUSIBLE PREMISES 104
WE HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST OTHERS AS LONG AS WE DO NOT SACRIFICE SOMETHING AS MORALLY SIGNIFICANT 105
A STRONG DUTY TO HELP THOSE IN NEED BEST PROMOTES UTILITY 106
WHETHER AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH MY “FAIR SHARE” IS IRRELEVANT 107
THAT OBLIGATIONS TO BENEFICENCE MIGHT BE DEMANDING BEYOND WHAT SOCIETY NORMALLY REQUIRES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY LACK INTERNAL LOGICAL COHERENCE 108
RELATIONALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS 109
SYMPATHY IS A NATURAL MORAL EMOTION THAT COMPELS US TO ACT IN THE FACE OF SUFFERING 109
RELATIONALITY IS A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF THE MORAL SUBJECT 110
THE LIBERAL ONTOLOGY COMMONLY EMPLOYED IN LEGAL DISCOURSE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DESCRIBE THE ETHICAL, RELATIONAL SUBJECT 111
OUR FUNDAMENTAL VULNERABILITY TO THE OTHER MAKES ETHICS A CORE COMPONENT OF SUBJECT FORMATION 112
RELATIONALITY AFFIRMS THE INESCAPABLY NORMATIVE DIMENSION OF HUMAN LIFE 113
DEHUMANIZATION GIVES US A SENSE OF MORAL DETACHMENT THAT ALLOWS US TO IGNORE SUFFERING 114
DEREALIZATION OF THE LIFE OF THE OTHER COMPROMISES MORAL RESPONSIVENESS 115
THE UNCHOSEN ADDRESS OF THE OTHER IS THE BASIS OF ETHICS 116
GENOCIDE 117
IT IS A SELF-EVIDENT MORAL FAILURE TO BE FATALISTIC IN THE FACE OF ATROCITY 117
IT IS EASY FOR OUR SENSE OF MORAL IDENTITY TO BE OVERWHELMED BY BUREAUCRACY THREATS OF PUNISHMENT 118
SOLUTIONS TO MORAL CATASTROPHES ARE SUPPORTED BY PUBLIC ETHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS 119
MORAL ATROCITY DEMANDS ACTION 120
POVERTY 121
WE LIVE IN A UNIQUE MOMENT WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO ERADICATE CRIPPLLING POVERTY 121
EXTREME POVERTY IS A STATE OF BOTH UNSATISFIED BASIC NEEDS AND A LACK OF HUMAN DIGNITY 122
POVERTY ABROAD IS MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN DOMESTIC POVERTY IN WEALTHY SOCIETIES 123
THE DEVELOPED WORLD HAS ENORMOUS AFFLUENCE 124
EVEN PEOPLE OF AVERAGE WEALTH WASTE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT 125
AFFLUENCE IS LARGELY BASED ON A MORALLY ARBITRARY LOTTERY OF BIRTH 126
INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT ASSISTING THOSE IN NEED 127
THE UNITED STATES GIVES A TINY AMOUNT OF FOREIGN AID 128
THE DUTY TO PROVIDE AID IS NOT JUST A GOVERNMENT DUTY 129
CITIZENS OF AFFLUENT SOCIETIES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST THE POOR 130
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BLOCKS OUR MORAL INTUITIONS ABOUT HELPING THOSE IN NEED 131
FUTILITY THINKING IMPEDES ALTRUISM 132
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY UNDERMINES ALTRUISM 133
IT DOES NOT TAKE THAT MANY RESOURCES TO RAISE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY 134
A COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS EMINENTLY ACHIEVABLE 135
WE ARE OBLIGATED TO BEYOND OUR “FAIR SHARE” TO REDRESS GLOBAL POVERTY 136
DONATING MONEY TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED IS A DUTY NOT AN ACT OF CHARITY 137
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO ASSIST 138
MANY COUNTRIES HAVE LAWS REQUIRING INDIVIDUALS TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 138
MANY JURISDICTIONS IN THE US HAVE LAWS REQUIRING INDIVIDUALS TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 139
BECAUSE IN A SOCIETY INDIVIDUALS RELY ON ONE ANOTHER, EVERYONE IS OBLIGATED TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED 140
AN OBLIGATION TO RESCUE WOULD SAVE LIVES 141
FAILING TO HELP SOMEONE IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE IS THE SAME AS CAUSING HARM 142
EVERYONE IN SOCIETY BENEFITS FROM A PRINCIPLE OBLIGATING INDIVIDUALS TO RESCUE THOSE IN NEED 143
LAWYERS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PRO BONO SERVICES TO THOSE IN NEED BECAUSE A PORTION OF THEIR MARKETABLE ASSESTS ARE PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC 144
AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT LAWYERS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PRO BONO SERVICE 145
PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES BENEFIT SOCIETY 146
AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PRO BONO SERVICES IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM 147
AN ENFORCABLE PRO BONO OBLIGATION IS NEEDED 148
THE PRIVLEDGES GRANTED TO LAWYERS AND THE BAR’S MONOLOPOLY ON LEGAL SERVICES CREATES AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PRO BONO SERVICES 149
ALL LAWYERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FUFILL THEIR PRO BONO OBLIGATION. A VOLUNTARY SYSTEM IS UNWORKABLE 150
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE 151
MORAL OBLIGATIONS AND SUPEREROGATION 151
SUPEREROGATION DEFINED 151
FAILING TO ASSIST THOSE IN NEED DOES NOT DEVALUE THEM 152
FOCUSING ETHICS ON DUTY TO THE EXCLUSION OF SUPEROGATORY ACTS IMPOVERISHES A MORAL THEORY 153
CLAIMS THAT THE AFFLUENT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST THE POOR ARE BASED ON A MISGUIDED CONCEPT OF DUE 154
EVEN IF WE SHOULD HELP THE POOR WE SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED TO DO SO 155
CONFUSING SYMPATHY WITH OBLIGATION IS DANGEROUS 156
OBLIGATIONS TO THE SELF MUST COME BEFORE OUR OBLIGATIONS TO OTHERS 157
KANT’S DUTY ETHICS LEAVE ACTS OF BENEFICENCE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE AGENT 158
THE NEEDS OF OTHERS ARE NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR AN OBLIGATION TO CHARITY 159
WE DO NOT HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO THOSE WHO CANNOT RECIPROCATE 160
DISTANT OBLIGATIONS AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 161
WE HAVE NO OBLIGATIONS TO ASSIST ANYONE OUTSIDE OF OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY 161
LEVINAS WANTS TO GROUND POLITICAL NORMS IN THE ETHICS OF PROXIMITY, NOT GLOBAL OBLIGATIONS TO DISTANT OTHERS 162
BADIOU ARGUES THAT ETHICS BASED ON RECOGNIZING THE VICTIMS OF ATROCITIES REPRODUCES IMPERIALISM, UNDERMINES A SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTION OF THE GOOD, AND FOSTERS A SELF-SATISFIED CONSERVATISM 163
FRAMING FOREIGN AID IN TERMS OF “ASSISTANCE” PAPERS OVER THE MORAL RESPONSIBILTY OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD FOR GLOBAL POVERTY 164
THINKING OF ANTI-POVERTY POLICIES AS “ASSISTANCE” IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BECAUSE ACKNOWLEDGING OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR POVERTY IS CRITICAL TO SOLVING IT 165
CAPITALISM 166
WE NATURALLY BENEFIT FROM THE UNEQUAL ENDOWMENTS OF NATURE; IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO TRY TO ‘FIX’ THEM 166
A FREE MARKET SYSTEM RESPECTS THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES 167
EXTENDED SOCIETY CANNOT BE CENTRALLY PLANNED 168
PRIVATE PROPERTY FACILITATES COORDINATION IN A SOCIETY WHERE EACH OF US ONLY HAS PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE, AND THUS FACILITATES SERVING THE NEEDS OF DISTANT OTHERS 169
OUR INSTINCTUAL ALTRUISM ACTUALLY HARMS THOSE IN NEED 170
EFFICIENT MARKETS MAKE EVERYONE BETTER OFF 171
CENTRAL PLANNING IS BOUND TO FAIL 172
LIBERTARIANISM 173
WE DO NOT HAVE AN OBLIGAITON TO SACRIFICE OUR FREEDOM TO ASSIST OTHERS 173
LIBERTARIANS OBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ON THE GROUNDS THAT DOING SO VIOLATES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 174
LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH OR INCOME IN ANY FORM 175
LIBERTARIANS ARGUE THAT THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH ECONOMIC INEQUALITY SO LONG AS WEALTH IS PROCURED LEGITIMATELY 176
ONE IS ENTITLED TO PROPERTY IF IT WAS JUSTLY OBTAINED AND JUSTLY TRANSFERRED 177
TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A PARTICULAR PATTERN OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS FAILES TO REALIZE THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF ENTITLEMENTS 178
OUR INTUITIONS TELL US THAT PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO WHAT THEY EARN THROUGH FAIR TRANSFERS 179
DISTRIBUTING RESOURCES TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE SOME DESIRABLE PATTERN REQUIRES CONSTANT REGULATION OF PEOPLE’S CHOICES 180
TAXATION IS ON PAR WITH FORCED LABOR 181
IT IS ILLEGITIMATE TO SEIZE A PERSON’S PROPERTY TO HELP THE NEEDY 182
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT DOES NOT CREATE AN OBLIGATION TO ASSIST OTHERS 183
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF GIVING PEOPLE A PROPERTY RIGHT IN EACH OTHER’S LABOR 184
PERSONS MUS BE INVIOLABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO OVERARCHING SOCIAL GOOD; ONLY INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE VULNERABLE TO BEING SACRIFICED FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS 185
TO CLAIM THAT ALL ENTITLEMENTS ARE MORALLY ARBITRARY UNDERMINES HUMAN WORTH 186
TO REGARD INDIVIDUAL TALENT AS PART OF THE COMMON PROPERTY OF SOCIETY REQUIRES THE ASSUMPTION OF A RADICALLY DETERMINED SUBJECT 187
THE ARBITRARINESS OF NATURAL ENDOWMENTS DOES NOT LOGICALLY IMPLY THAT THESE ENDOWMENTS ARE COMMUNAL PROPERTY 188
UTILITARIANISM 189
SOME UTILITARIANS OBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT DISINCENTIVES PRODUCTIVITY 189
IT MAY ULTIMATELY MAXIMIZE UTILITY TO FAVOR VALUING CONTEXTUAL MORAL RELATIONSHIPS RATHER THAN AN ABSTRACT OBLIGATION TO HELP ALL THOSE IN NEED 190
SINGER STRONGLY OVERSTATES THE DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY ANY PERSON HAS FOR THE SUFFERING OF DISTANT OTHERS 191
THE IDEA THAT ALL PEOPLE’S INTERSTINGS SHOULD BE EQUALLY CONSIDERED IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE 192
SINGER FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ARGUING THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO RELIEVE DISTANT SUFFERING. 193
IF OVERPOPULATION IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL POVERTY, IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF PEOPLE IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 194
ANY DUTY TO AID WOULD HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE AGENT KNOW THAT THE AID WOULD ACTUALLY ALLEVIATE SUFFERING 195
IN THE LONG RUN AID WILL ONLY MAKE GLOBAL POVERTY WORSE 196
SINGERS ARGUMENT FOR AIDING THE POOR IS BASED ON A NUMBER OF FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS 197
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS 198
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS PUNISH INDIVIDUALS FOR BEING A BAD PERSON RATHER THAN COMMITING BAD ACTS 198
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS ARE LIKELY TO PUNISH INNOCENT PEOPLE. 199
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS GRANT POLICE AND PROSECUTORS TOO MUCH DISCRETION 200
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS ARE BAD FOR SOCIETY 201
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS CREATE POSITIVE DUTIES THAT VIOLATE AUTONOMY 202
MANDATORY PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES ACTUALLY HARM THE POOR 203
A REQUIREMENT OF PRO BONO SERVICES RAISE HOUSING AND OTHER COSTS 204
REQUIRED PRO BONO SERVICES WOULD BE INEFFICIENT 205
THERE IS NO NEED FOR BAD SAMARITAN LAWS 206
NON-RESCUES ARE NOT A PROBLEM. IN FACT, MORE PEOPLE DIE ATTEMPTING TO RESCUE OTHERS THAN THERE ARE REPORTED CASES OF NON-RESCUES 207
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS ARE INEFFECTIVE 208
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE INSTANCES OF NON-RESCUE 209
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT DOES NOT PROVIDE A REASON TO CREATE BAD SAMARITAN LAWS 210
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS WOULD IMPOSE THE RISK OF INJURY ON INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 211
BAD SAMARITAN LAWS WOULD EITHER BE UNFAIR OR IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE 212
GOOD SAMARITAN DO NOT ACTUALLY WORK 213
THE PROBLEMS OF CHARITIES 214
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE IF A PARTICULAR USE OF MONEY IS BEST SO THERE CAN NEVER BE A PARTICULAR OBLIGATION TO GIVE TO CHARITY 214
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE COMPARITIVE JUDGMENTS REGARDING DONATIONS TO CHARITY 215
EMERGENCY AND CHARITABLE AID IS OFTEN ADMINISTERED WITH EXTREME INEFFICIENCY 216

——
*note: if you do not want to order online, and would prefer to send in your order using email, fax, mail or phone, download the ORDER FORM and print it for yourself.

If you have questions, please email help@victorybriefs.com or call 310-472-6364.