Gay marriage should be legal

And though I believe he has misunderstood several elements of this discussion, this will probably heal in time as this is a new topic for both of us (albeit this is the last round). ==================== Attack on political realism -- A precursor ==================== My opponent's defense of PR seems to stem from his misunderstanding of what a final end/supreme value/intrinsic value/etc. is. Once he realizes what exactly this concept entails, he will see that my arguments are much more sound than he initially thought them to be. As stated before over and over, value monism holds that there is only one (thus the monism) intrinsic value; the end of all ends. For example, utilitarianism states that happiness is the intrinsic value and is something we should all strive to uphold (namely in relations to ethical judgments). By definition, an intrinsic value CANNOT serve as the means to another end (otherwise it wouldn't be the end of all ends). So for example, many people traditionally hold that happiness is an intrinsic value, because they desire it for the sake of itself. In examination of my opponent's analysis of my arguments, he stumbles over this cardinal point about an intrinsic value: ==================== Attack on political realism -- Meta-ethically unsound -- Intrinsic Value ==================== "As it is traditionally held, yes; but Power need not be the ONLY value in such a society, merely the supreme value. Nor need it be "Power for power's sake," such a goal is meaningless; power does not exist in a vacuum, it is only power because it enables some action or or state of being to occur or remain. " ----> Thank you, you've helped me expose a flaw of PR - power does not exist in a vacuum, but only as a means for some other end. And true, power is not the only value (in terms of things that are wanted), but you do grant that it is the intrinsic value. And since this is so, then it CANNOT be the means for any other ends. .. which you admit happens, thus contradicting your own position. "This is incorrect in this case. If were were discussing Happiness, one could rightly say that it is not a means to anything, but an end in it's own right to be sought; however we are discussing Power. Power is an end to be sought BECAUSE it is the means to all ends; no other value (as I argued before, and my opponent has not disagreed) can be obtained without the power to do so. " ----> You have very backwards thinking. You agree that happiness is an intrinsic value because it's desired for itself, but then you say that power is something that can be sought as a means to other ends. If that is so, then you are saying power is NOT the intrinsic value and thus PR's main tenet is wrong. You can't fiddle with the definition of intrinsic value - the issue at hand here is to see whether or not power can be thought of as an adequate intrinsic value, which we both agree it does not. "My opponent's argument here is a false dichotomy: either something is an end, or a means to an end. Power is both. " ----> I can defeat all your analogies by refuting this point: to make this dichotomy clear, it must be shown that either something is an intrinsic value (end of all ends) or its merely a means to another end. Take the money example for instance. While it's true many people work at jobs with the intent of gaining money (which seems to be a clear cut case of means --> end), the further thinking they have is that such money will buy them the things they desire, which in turn causes them happiness. Once this list ends, they will point to happiness as the intrinsic value, NOT money. To say money is an ends is perfectly okay, but this is just a partial view of the whole schematics. I am referring to an intrinsic value, and thus it is at the end of the chain. ==================== Attack on political realism -- Meta-ethically unsound -- Is-ought problem ==================== "In regards to IS/OUGHT, I have only to say that I have shown him what IS; he has yet to show me what OUGHT (or more cogently, why PR ought not) to be. He may find this rather difficult, as he has yet to advance and defend an ethical theory that condemns PR. " ----> My opponent doesn't seem to mean what I am referring to as the is-ought problem. It is talking about the problem of coming from a group of descriptive statements (you say many countries value power to a certain degree) and arriving at a prescriptive conclusion (you conclude by saying power is the intrinic value). There seems to be a fundamental gap, because how can a group of descriptive statements show what we OUGHT to do? I am posing this problem to you, and to every other ethical theory - I purport it has yet to come across a satisfactory answer. I do not need to advance any ethical theory, since this question presupposes all of them are currently unsatisfactory. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent supplies a brief list of arguments I have dropped. What he doesn't realize is that I have either agreed with most of them (government must have power, power is a necessary means to most if not all other values, etc. ) and the others I have not argued for but rather hinted on as an introduction (namely ones related to intuitive examples). I simply don't need any of these to be discussed, since I am attacking a focal point in my opponent's ethical theory. As it stands, PR is a ridiculously philosophically naive theory. It is a far stretch from solving major meta-ethical hurdles that all normative theories have to handle.