Gay marriage should be legal

Before I delve into the merits of PR, I want to note that it may seem almost tangential of me to focus my arguments on the validity of PR and not gay marriage. I will responding by saying there has been two conditions obtained in this debate: we both accept all humans have the same inherent rights and that if marriage is abolished, then both heterosexual and homosexual marriage should thus be eradicated. Thus, it seems to be that gay marriage should be legalized prima facie if heterosexual is as well - my opponent has made no effort to draw a distinction (and I suspect he doesn't see one). Obviously, he instead takes a stance against marriage in general, which will give him suitable footing to be against gay marriage. So to combat this, I fight against PR. This should be straightforward and without confusion; my attack on PR constitutes a defense of gay marriage. ==================== Attack on political realism - A precursor ==================== Before I begin, I want to remind the audience that it seems since my opponent hasn't touched on my two other sections (my acceptance of the existence of governments and the clarification on PR), that it should be assumed he accepts such claims. If this is so, then we are on an even plain of understanding, so now onto his defense: ==================== Attack on political realism - Meta-ethically unsound ==================== Political realism depends on the idea of value monism, which states that for an ethical theory there is only one ultimate or rather intrinsic value (for example, utilitarianism is a value monist theory because they view happiness as the ultimate value). According to value monism, "the intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has "in itself," or "for its own sake,"ï¿½ or "as such,"ï¿½ or "in its own right[1]. " This mostly conveniently known as an end-in-itself, which translates into power for PR. Here are the problems: My opponent contradicts himself. He states that "power is the ultimate value", but then goes on to say that it is the means to all ends. An intrinsic value cannot be a means to anything, it is the end to all ends! This was the point of my original criticism, which makes it seem my opponent doesn't understand what I mean. In fact, he actually states that "power as a ethical value is derived from observation of human nature and the realities of existence, rather than having the tenuous ethical backing of metaphysical assumptions. " This is a naive attempt to bridge the gap between what IS the case and what SHOULD be the case. In terms of ethics, this was famously noted by the philosopher David Hume, and is called the is-ought problem: "systems of moral philosophy, proceeding in the ordinary way of reasoning, at some point make an unremarked transition from premises linked only by "is" to propositions linked by "ought" (expressing a new relation) — a deduction that seems to Hume "altogether inconceivable. [2]" He needs to resolve this major meta-ethical question: how does PR account for it's purported intrinsic value? How does it show that power must be the ultimate value? Referring to the previous problem, my opponent attempts to give a justification for this. He directs attention to the fact that many societies has valued power to a certain extent, because -- as he correctly points out -- power is a very useful means to a variety of ends (wealth, political standing, etc. ). Almost expectedly, however, he then bridges this fact to power being the intrinsic value and acts as if this is an adequate account. .. nope it's not. As stated before, he both contradicts his position and fails to give an account for the meta-ethical foundations of PR. These two critical errors is something he needs to address. ==================== Remarks about intuition and Conclusion ==================== Before I conclude, I want to observe that my opponent seems to attack me several times of "appealing to intuition. " In response, wile I share similar sentiments I do warn him of belittling intuition. In analytic philosophy, it is commonly used as a tool to test out claims and ideas; it is a handy method that has led to much philosophical progression (Frankfurt examples, Gettier problem responses, etc. ). While I do agree it should not be a tool for conclusively proving claims (just merely hinting towards the correct answer), I used it in this debate as a precursor to my arguments with significant reasoning behind them. So no, I am not rightfully charged with appealing to emotion and whatnot since I do not intent to use intuition as my conclusive method of disproving PR. As you can see, PR suffers from embarrassing meta-ethical problems in all sorts of form. Such a flimsy political theory should be thrown away, as it is philosophically ludicrous. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu...