What makes it intrinsic?

What I don’t like about Hurka is that right off the bat he says on the first page of the chapter that he is taking virtues to be intrinsically good and vices to be bad. He doesn’t state any reasons why and just assumes that it’s true when it’s not. We have just read an entire book that tries to explain and argue why vice is bad and even then I’m not convinced. I don’t see how someone could just start with that premise when others have devoted entire books trying to prove it true. Later on in the chapter he talks about it a little in respect to subjective mental states. He says that virtues and vices are welfarist states because they better or worsen the agent whether he likes it or not, but that’s not necessarily true. Hurka hasn’t convinced me of anything. He treats subjective and objective moral views as complementary. To him, morals just fall in either category and virtues are objective. But I see subjective and objective views as contrasting. Virtues aren’t necessarily objective and Hurka uses recursive characterization to try and prove that. But he isn’t really going behind the “intrinsic” nature of good and evil. He’s assuming good is something we want and evil is something we don’t want, but he just cast aside the subjective views from both. Something isn’t intrinsic just because he says it is. He needs to prove to me why an objective view of virtues is the right one and he just assumes it is.