args

Gay marriage should be legal

I thank my opponent for his response, and his courtesy. This debate, suggested by my opponent back in September, has given me the opportunity to learn more about political philosophy, and has given my mind a much-needed opportunity to stretch; I didn't know Political Realism existed until this debate... ------- As my opponent has stated, my arguments are invalid if he can disprove my starting premise; although this debate threatens to center on the validity of Political Realism rather than whether or not governments should allow homosexuals to marry. I choose to take that risk; I believe that by defending one proposition, I can defend both. Notice, that my opponent has staked everything on his ability to discredit PR: "So I will disregard the two other arguments, since they are contingent upon the idea of political realism. I will dedicate my arguments to defeating political realism, and thus leaving my opponent bankrupt of any reason to ban gay marriage." Fair enough, but by so doing he has conceded that IF PR is correct, then my arguments against gay marriage logically follow. I will now address my opponent's arguments in order, and examine my opponent's assumptions. -------- Defence of Political Realism: "...what justification does my opponent have for believing a government's role is primarily to improve it's power?" My cynicism tempts me to rant here about the nature of all governments, but instead I shall limit myself to suggesting that my opponent would have been better off had he written "should be" rather than "is." Also, I recommend the little book by Lincoln Steffens, "The Shame of the Cities," dealing with political machines in the early 1900's. "This would seem to mean that maximizing power is somehow the desired end...but this is intuitively troubling, why so?" Is my opponent appealing to common sense in a political/ethical debate? :P "Usually gaining power is meant for the means of obtaining some other end, whether it be wealth, order, etc. If PR upholds that power is the ultimate value, then it must preclude to itself a reasonable case for why this is so." And my opponent has put his finger on the point: power is the ultimate value, because it is the means to all ends. Allow me to demonstrate. Societies throughout the millennia have adhered to various ethical standards. Most ethical standards originate in, are codified by, and/or propagated by one or more religions. These religions are metaphysical in nature; they are neither provable nor disprovable, as they deal with untestable factors. Thus, the ethical systems based on them have their basis in untestable assumptions. On the other hand, the vast majority (if not all) of societies have valued, sought, revered, or otherwise approved of power. It is one of the few universal factors in all human relationships, human societies, and human activities. It should be self evident that the power to exist is fundamental for existence, not only on the basic level of human life, but extending all the way up through the largest institutions conceivable. Similarly, the power to accomplish one's purposes is necessary to actually achieve the same, applying in the same way to all entities. Because it is necessary to achieve any other proposable value for society, power can be considered the ultimate value. Society cannot achieve wealth, or knowledge, or order, or happiness, or any other goal, without having the power to do so. PR states that power is the rightful goal of government; why? Because if governments have specific purposes for existence (probably based on the values of their society) they must have power to be able to achieve those purposes. By maximizing their power, governments are best able to achieve the things the rest of society values. Because: 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; And: Power is necessary to achieve all other values; I submit that Power is the ultimate value, both worthy and necessary to be sought. "2. According to PR, might would be right. This brute concept is rarely upheld by sane, rational thinkers because it seems to be devoid of any philosophical merit. I ask of my opponent, how would you justify this?" Where to start? First, I object to the charge of brutishness; and the idea that somehow my insanity precludes my ability to reason. Both are emotional charges leveled at my person, which have no bearing on this case. Also, the appeal to asthetics; using the word "brute" to describe my position and "sane, rational" to describe your position (whatever it is!), generates an emotional response in the reader that has no bearing on the validity of our respective arguments. Second, I have already detailed the philosophical basis for PR; twice now. If the pursuit of power is ethically justified, and my opponent cannot provide a logically justified ethical system that condemns "Might," I hold this maxim to be, although crude, essentially correct. "...it should also have been thrown out long ago." Reasons? All you have said is that my position is "intuitively troubling" and "rarely upheld." "In the face of overwhelming evidence" Where? "PR's conception of ethics is not only twisted, but completely unjustified. Give your ethical basis for this condemnation. Justify it. I'm unaware of any generally accepted ethical standard; does your statement have any basis in fact? --------- My opponent assumes that: a) there is a universal ethical standard by which the pursuit and use of power can be condemned, and b) it is not in a country's best interest to protect itself to the best of its ability against stronger countries. I refuse to accept either without proof. I await his arguments, and extend all of mine into the next round.