Philosophy harbors famous divides: utilitarians confront Kantians; communitarians oppose libertarians; and, in legal theory, natural law theorists debate positivists. Explorations into these divides typically proceed with one of three goals in mind. First, one may aim for a position on one side, advancing arguments that reveal new strengths in the position or expose new weaknesses in the opposing camp. (One camp is better.) Second, one may try to bridge the gap by showing that apparently opposed positions share unsuspected connections that reveal them to be links in a common enterprise. (Both camps occupy the same ground—there is no divide.) Finally, relying in part on the fact that these debates seem interminable, one may argue that the dispute is meaningless—a reflection of some misguided theoretical or linguistic assumption that, once exposed, reveals the entire enterprise to have been so much wasted energy. (There is no ground here for either side to camp—move on to something else.)