Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted

General RebuttalsIs/Ought FallacyWhen an equivocation between what is objective, or is with what ought to be the case, then this fallacy has been committed, which Con has done rather abusively throughout his arguments. [. http://goo.gl...] The only coherent context from which ought statements thus can be derived are If --> Then statements, derived from values etc. This is also categorically sound, since ny conclusions can only include terms included in its premises e. g. :1. If A then B2. A3. Therefore BThe is-ought gap essentially demonstrates that ought is not a term included amongst is-only premises, thus needs to be introduced (in the form of a conditional for example, such as substitution into P1 of the above) into at least one before an ought conclusion can be drawn. Religious Norms and the difference between Rights & ValuesCon needs to establish why religious values have anything to do with this resolution. Religious values do not dictate any single course of actions. Moreover they can only inform the public’s individual values, and only if the people adopt that aspect of their religion. For example drinking is against some Muslim’s values for religious reasons, however other Muslims will not share that aspect of their religion and thus have no problem with alcohol. [. http://goo.gl...]For the purposes of the question of whether something should be legalised however, only the societies’ values can be considered, which may or may not be informed by religious reasons. Given that there are multiple religions with a range of different and contradictory imperatives, cannot in principle say anything on whether or not we ought to rule based on them, for what is against one’s religion will be permissible by another’s. Furthermore, religious values only provide an argument for why an individual should not perform a certain action. This resolution isn’t about enforcing incestuous marriage on those who do not want an incestuous marriage themselves – it is entirely optional whether or not people marry their close relatives. This debate is about the right to marry, rather than the act to marry itself. Thus even if one is morally or socially against an action – one can still be for the right for someone to do that action. A parallel for example can be drawn to freedom of speech, where the right to speak overrides what is being spoken:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "Thus, even if society is against incestuous marriage, the case for the right to incestuous marriage is unaffected. Slippery Slope FallacyCon has attempted to get a lot of mileage out of the alleged slippery slope between permitting incestuous marriage and various other unpleasant consequences. However for such an argument to be valid he would actually need to justify all his premises that entail these, as well as the fact that such actions should also not be permitted. E. g. (in a formal construction)1. Legalising abortion means we should allow some forms of murder2. We should not permit any form of murderC. We should not legalise abortionWithout justifying either premises 1 or 2, it becomes a slippery slope fallacy, since we have no reason to believe either premise. Thus when Pro appeals to paedophilia, zoophilic, euthanasia, etc. then he must actually justify both premises of his argument. Specific RebuttalsI. Incestuous Lawful Marriage is an incoherent conceptRecall the definition of incest:“Relationship between two people traditionally considered too closely related to be married. Including parent-child, sibling-sibling and between a parent's sibling and a parent's child. ”The definition includes a traditional consideration and specific examples, thus it is not by definition unlawful. It may well entail acts that today are unlawful in some states, but then legalising incestuous marriage would also obviously entail legalising incest itself, Thus this argument is also a non-starter – and blatantly commits the is-ought fallacy (see prior rebuttal). This is equivalent to someone opposing the permitting the sale of cannabis by appealing to its current illegal status – obviously would also entail legalising cannabis. II. Incestuous relationships should not be permitted in a democracyWhether or not a society is a democracy is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an action should be undertaken, since the ethical considerations are essentially the same, and Pro would have to appeal to moral knock-on effects of a democracy/non-democracy to make an argument here. Furthermore I have already addressed most of these points in my previous round, so I extend all my previous rebuttals.1. This is the first definition of democracy I found:“government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly bythemor by their elected agents under a free electoral system. ” [. http://goo.gl...]Nowhere is it implied that the majority should rule the minority, only that we value election and supreme power laying with the people. This means all people, including minorities. Con’s position is quite bluntly to rule the minorities by the whims of the majority, yet ignores my defence to this and the absurd consequences it entails. Moreover, legalising incestuous marriage doesn’t obviously entail the minority ruling the majority in either case thus is a clear strawman. We largely prohibit actions which seriously risk harming society, which is a much more general value shared by democratic voters. Incestuous marriage simply doesn’t possess these harms as already argued. Given that democratic nations usually include explicit protections for minorities regardless of their backgrounds, it flat out falsifies Con’s assertion that people value ruling the minority. [. http://goo.gl...]2. “In democratic countries, which constitute much of the World, incestuous marriage should not be allowed. ”This isn’t even an argument, it is a statement (with no justification either)! At best it’s an is/ought fallacy, see relevant section for rebuttal.3. This is essentially the same argument as “Incestuous Lawful Marriage is an incoherent concept” (this whole debate is about allowing incestuous marriage, thus stating it is not allowed is simply not an argument but a statement), I extend my rebuttals to this. Furthermore it is also a blatant is/ought fallacy (see appropriate section), and the non-democratic nature of a nation is largely irrelevant to what it should do as already discussed. III. Incestuous relationships should be restricted by social or religious norms1. “If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we will have to concede all norms, for then, they should be all considered arbitrary. ”It seems Pro is putting the horse in front of the cart, for norms generally follow values, and not the other way around. Our values dictate our actions, and our actions become social norms. Con would have to show why norms are relevant in how we legislate. Our values are quite independent of norms. For example we usually value not dying, yet a social norm may be to execute Jews such as in the holocaust. It is the value of not dying (and not suffering, etc. ) which dictates how we should legislate, not the norms.2. “If we concede all norms, then we have to concede the norms such as those of nubility (& thus age of consent), or bestiality, or human sacrifice, or infanticide. . . ”I have no idea what Con is trying to say with “concede all norms” – the statement is not intelligible English. Social norms are a state of affairs, thus “conceding all norms” is like saying “conceding all apples” or “conceding all Ferraris” – it makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore Con provides no justification why his slippery slope assertions follow thus can be soundly ignored until he provides it. It also seems that his argument is a denying the antecedent, which is a formal fallacy. [. http://goo.gl...]1. Social norms include no bestiality, no human sacrifice, etc.2. No social norms (or whatever the heck his statement is meant to mean)3. Therefore, bestiality, human sacrifice, etc. I would dispute both premises here, for social norms are going to exist regardless of whether or not we value them in legislation. For example legalising murder would not entail everyone is going to murder each other. Legalising same-sex marriage doesn’t entail everyone is going to marry someone of the same sex. Furthermore social norms aren’t being destroyed/conceded/etc. here, they are simply ignored for purposes of law in society.3. This first premise here is correct, his second premise is not:“such as those related to nubility, bestiality, voluntary suicide & human sacrifice . . . for they don’t infringe on the liberty of others nor harm others. ”This is a slippery slope fallacy (already discussed). Furthermore nobility, paedophilia, bestiality and human sacrifice I would argue clearly do harm liberty – and also have pragmatic considerations within the context of harming liberty. Given Con has made 0 attempt to justify any of these assertions entails no harm nor impingement on liberty, then these can be dismissed as bare assertions (such as with euthanasia etc. ).4. “If we don’t value social or religious norms, then we should permit…”This like #3 is another slippery slope fallacy, yet in this case his first premise isn’t even correct, since it doesn’t follow that disregarding social/religious norms would entail permitting these (see my previous point about not legislating based on norms, but on fundamental values). Moreover, isn’t this an argument against social & religious norms, since many societies and religions actually permit paedophilic marriage & nubility (e. g. Islam), bestiality (some Hindu branches). Thus ruling based on these norms would entail these (such as what is currently the case in many Islamic nations). [. http://goo.gl...]SummaryI have shown that incest provides fun for the whole family.