A defense of two optimistic claims in ethical theory

I aim to show that(i)there are good ways to argue about what has intrinsic value; and(ii)good ethical arguments needn't make ethical assumptions. I support (i)and(ii)by rebutting direct attacks, by discussing nine plausible ways to argue about intrinsic value, and by arguing for pain's intrinsic badness without making ethical assumptions. If(i)and(ii) are correct, then ethical theory has more resources than many philosophers have thought: empirical evidence bearing on intrinsic value. With more resources, we can hope to base all of our moral beliefs on evidence rather than on, say emotion or mere intuition.