Resolved: When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of Achilles

Moral Values: The positions elucidated by Pro and Con represent a choice of value. The position articulate by Con claims that the good can be identified with personal happiness and this is what should guide our decisions. But if the good is personal happiness, we must acknowledge that the happiness of all individuals is of value, indeed of equal value to the happiness of any other individual. For all men experience the same feelings of happiness, we have no way to differentiate the value of one man’s happiness over another. In this way we see that valuing happiness leads us to the conclusion that we must act in a way that maximizes the happiness of all men. Given Con’s framework of value, Achilles’ choice should still be taken as paradigmatic. My R1 2) and 3) both show how the pursuit of glory at personal expense is necessary for the happiness of man-kind. My 2) shows that the pursuit of glory by great leaders at their own personal expense is needed for the growth of civilization and the sustenance of society. Without this sacrifice society would collapse in times of crisis. My 2) also shows that the pursuit of glory increase happiness because it is aspirational. It motivates individuals to personal sacrifice for the betterment of those around them. The pursuit of glory inspires those around us to work harder and achieve more, building a more successful and happy society. My 3) shows that refusal of glory comes at a cost to those around us. Achilles was a great military leader, and his men were better for his leadership. When we refuse the path of glory and fame, we refuse to shoulder the burdens that those around us need us to carry. Cowardice harms those around us. The value I have defended is that of the human ideal. The good is that which exemplifies the uniqueness and greatness of humanity. We are good when we are brave, when we use our unique intelligence to perform great tasks, when we respect the value of our fellow men by recognizing our societal obligations. If my standard of value is superior to Con’s, I have won this debate. Con’s case prioritizes individual happiness over all other values, fore-saking values like honor and bravery. My values could never endorse foresaking glory and its assciated values.This means Con must win both that happiness is the ONLY value of consideration AND that the best way to achieve happiness is to foresake glory in order to win this debate. Competing Values: My value is superior for several reasons: It can account for the moral worth of happiness. My value recognizes that joy is valuable human capacity and we should value it in our moral considerations. Con’s values exclude apparently laudable actions, for example the starving and struggling artist who creates great works but only achieves fame after his death. My value better fits our moral language. When evaluate the decisions of ourselves and others we use a diverse vocabulary that includes concepts like “duty,” “honesty,” and “braver.” We do not reduce all moral considerations to those of happiness. Rebuttal: The Resolution clearly states “when given the chance…” demonstrating that Achilles choice is not universally available but instead is dependent on opportunity. It is absurd to say that all people will make this choice, as many people die during childhood or before they could ever have a chance to achieve anything of glory. As I argued in R1, Achilles’ choice is presented to few people, and those are the people who must choose glory. My opponent claims I have already lose this debate by “implying that a status quo of most people living long lives and a select few achieving great things is preferable.” This is incorrect for two reasons. First, my argument is only pointing out that not everyone must make Achilles choice, not that long and happy lives are generally preferable. We need not consider a case in which EVERYONE choose glory because this case is not possible. Second, I do not deny the value of happiness or longevity, I argue that it is a value which must be weighed against an array of competing human values. My conclusion is that the values associated with fame and glory outweigh those of longevity. There is no contradiction in my argument and the claim that most people living happy lives is preferable. Con points out that when we die, we lose all sense of awareness and so cannot personally benefit from our acts of glory. First, simply being alive has no intrinsic value. A life of perpetual torture or a life used to act cruelly, to rape and murder, is not valuable. The content of the life is what gives life value. Con must account for what value there is to living, and he seems to say this is the pursuit of happiness. Here we can cross apply my arguments that pursuit of glory is needed for perpetuation of happiness. Also cross apply that we should value all aspects of human value, including honor and greatness, not just happiness. Second, Achilles’ choice does not condemn one to a life of misery- only a brief life. Achilles and Alexander achieved fame and power in their life time, but at the cost of longevity and only through great strife and trial. It is false to say Achilles received no benefit from his decision.Also, when all of humanity strives toward achievement and glory, all men share in the benefits. Individuals must sometimes sacrifice themselves, but without this sacrifice we would have never landed on the moon we would never have built our great cities. Being human requires us to shoulder the responsibility of making individual sacrifice. To do otherwise is cowardice and laziness. Third, to live focused only on personal gain is base and not worth living. A heroin addict thinks only of his own pleasure when he robs and steals to get his next fix. A rapist thinks only of himself when he uses other people to gratify shi sexual desires. Such a life is morally reprehensible. Even if Con claims happiness is all we should value, he must acknowledge that the happiness of those around us has value as well. Achilles’ choice best represents consideration for his own happiness and the happiness of others. Fourth, Con’s argument proves my R1 3) - Con would have the soldier flee from battle and let his brothers die, since bravery and duty are of no benefit to the individual soldier. This demonstrates that Con’s position is incompatible with my values of the human ideal; Con endorses cowardice when it is personally expedient. Finally, Achilles received the benefit of having lived a good life- a life exemplifying the virtues of humanity. This benefit is far greater than the basic pleasures of an anonymous and peaceful life. Con says most people are cowards for not achieving glory, I disagree: Most people do not refuse to live a life of glory, they are never given the chance to lead such a life. This is not cowardice. I would argue it is cowardice if you are failing to live up to your potential, but that is irrelevant to this debate.