What if our self-defense argument contained no moral premise?
Why must we have at least one premise that is a moral statement? Without a moral premise, the argument would not get off the ground. We can- not infer a moral statement (conclusion) from a nonmoral statement (premise). That is, we cannot reason that a moral statement must be true because a nonmoral state of affairs is actual. Or as philoso- phers say, we cannot establish what ought to be or should be solely on the basis of on what is. What if our self-defense argument contained no moral premise? Look:
2. Assaulting a person who is attacking you is a violent act of self-defense.
3. Therefore, assaulting a person who is attacking you is morally permissible.
The conclusion no longer follows. It says some- thing about the rightness of an action, but the premise asserts nothing about rightness—it just characterizes the nonmoral aspects of an action. Perhaps the action described is morally permissi- ble, or perhaps it is not—Premise 2 does not say.
Another example:
1. Not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is allowing the infant to die.
3. Therefore, not using every medical means avail – able to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is wrong.
As it stands, this argument is seriously flawed. The conclusion (a moral statement) does not fol- low from the nonmoral premise. Even if we know that “not using every medical means” is equivalent
to allowing a seriously ill newborn to die, we can- not then conclude that the action is wrong. We need a premise making that assertion:
2. Allowing terminally ill newborn infants to die is wrong.
Here’s the complete argument:
1. Not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is allowing the infant to die.
2. Allowing terminally ill newborn infants to die is wrong.
3. Therefore, not using every medical means avail – able to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is wrong.