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

Please see the comments for Con's previous argument. I let him post there due to the technical difficulty of managing a 30 minute round. Overview: I am winning this debate in several different ways. Each of these are independent reasons to vote Pro. First, I have proven that human decisions should account for a wide range of values, including happiness, honor, and courage. This best accounts for the wide range of moral situations humans are subject to and our diverse moral language. My approach of evaluating the human ideal accounts for our valuation of happiness, while Con’s approach ignores broad swathes of value in human life. Foregoing glory is incommensurate with this value system because it prioritizes happiness over all other values. It is an act of cowardice, it fails to accord courage its proper value. Foregoing glory is also foregoing the achievement that makes humanity great and undermines humanity’s legacy of achievement by depriving us of models of greatness. Achilles could never choose his own happiness over the legacy of greatness that runs from himself through Alexander through Caesar and persists to this very day. In choosing glory, Achilles does not devalue happiness- he recognizes the value of the happiness he received in his short life- he recognizes that value is diverse and multifaceted. In refusing glory, Achilles turns his back on all but his own happiness. Second, I have shown that Con’s values are in fact reprehensible. Con advocates that individuals seek only their own individual happiness without regard for the well being of others. This makes a vote for Con a vote for rapists, murderers, traitors, and thieves. Such a world is not only appalling but unsustainable. As I argued in R3, society would not be possible if we did not foresake our own happiness for the well being of others. Con’s position is unsustainable and so should be absolutely rejected. Third, even if we do value only our own happiness, I have shown that our own happiness depends on the collective efforts of humanity. We all benefit from the efforts of Alexander the Great, from greek philosophers and Roman statesmen. Our individual happiness requires that others make sacrifices in pursuit of great achievements. Because the collective pursuit of glory is a precondition for individual happiness, valuation of individual happiness requires us to be willing to make sacrifices for the pursuit of glory. Fourth, if the judges graciously interpret Con’s position to be that the maximization of happiness in general is the only thing of value, I have shown that the best way to maximize happiness is through the pursuit of glory. Line-by-Line Rebuttal: Con misconstrues my moral framework, so let me clarify: First, I deny that happiness is the ONLY moral value. Morality is rooted in the uniqueness and greatness of humanity. We can look to what we value about humanity in general to determine what our moral values are. Happiness is one thing we value, but it must be weighed against other values such as courage and honor and beauty. Second, I argue that valuation of one individual’s happiness logically entails valuation of all individual’s happiness. I acknowledge that we have a unique responsibility for our own happiness, but this is not what gives our happiness its value. We don’t say “I value my happiness because it is mine,” instead we value it for the intrinsic sense of well being it affords us. But all men and women feel the same intrinsic value of happiness. The justification for the value of happiness is not the subject, but the thing itself. If Con claims the only thing that makes my happiness valuable is that fact that it is mine, then he must explain why absolutely anything that is mine- suffering, fear, courage, etc. are equally valuable to happiness. This leads down a rabbit hole we no longer have time for in this debate, I have no chance to pursue this inquiry so the judges should consider this a flaw in Con’s justification. Third, I do value the global perspective of humanity insofar as each individual in the past, present, and future embodies the human ideal. They all are morally relevant to our decisions. I concede that the uncertainty of our future should factor into our decisions, but we can say with a substantial amount of certainty that humanity will be around for millenia to come. Con has offered no substantial argument that we won’t, so we should look to our longevity of our species history as evidence of a long future to come. The scale of the universe does not devalue humanity. First, this argument applies equally to individual happiness- if an infinite universe devalues glory it also devalues happiness. Second, humanity has value as long as men are around to value it. As long as humanity survives, it will exemplify greatness. I concede that it is not ALWAYS necessary to “die in a blaze of glory” but it is undoubtedly true that it SOMETIMES is. Moreover, the broad question of the Resolution is only which we should choose when posed the alternative of glory over longevity- as I stated in my opening argument, some people won’t have to make this choice. We are arguing about those who do. Pro only now questions the value of Alexander’s achievements, we don’t have time to debate that at this point. I claim that the millions who benefitted from the spread of Greek philosophy, the establishment of cities and commerce and transportation hubs outweigh the blood spilled in his campaign. Anyways ancient war was common, if it wasn’t Alexander it would have been some local warlord doing the killing. Con claims glory is an illusion, but I have shown that glory has a huge influence on the course of humanity. Achilles’ glory shaped events millenia after his death. Moreover the glory accompanies glorious action, and glorious action such as a soldier saving his brothers in arms has massive benefit. Glory is the reflection of the worth of an action, it is not illusory. Con claims an artist who is only discovered after his death has wasted his life. I would say that millions of people disagree with Con - people admire and study Picasso and similar artists. We would have no difficulty saying “someone with a wasted life might as well not have been born” but we would never say this of Picasso or a similar artist. Con concedes that duty and honor tie into happiness- he thus concedes that pursuit of glory is the best way to propogate happiness. The pursuit of glory creates and maximizes more happiness, thus when given the choice we should pursue glory rather than prioritize our own longevity. Con concedes that life alone has no value and says it is happiness that gives life value. This means that longevity alone has no inherent value and this debate is just a question of the supremacy of happiness to a pluralistic value system. I maintain that I better account for all the factors that make life valuable. Thanks for reading. Tough debate.