A nonmoral premise is also necessary in a moral argument. Why exactly?
A nonmoral premise is also necessary in a moral argument. Why exactly? Recall that the conclusion of a typical moral argument is a moral judgment, or claim, about a particular kind of action. The moral premise is a general moral principle, or standard, concerning a wider category of actions. But we can- not infer a statement (conclusion) about a particular kind of action from a moral statement (premise) about a broad category of actions—unless we have a nonmoral premise to link the two. We saw, for example, that we cannot infer from the general principle that “committing a violent act to defend yourself . . . is morally permissible” the conclusion that “assaulting a person who is attacking you is morally permissible” unless a nonmoral premise tells us that assaulting a person who is attacking you is an instance of self-defense. (The nonmoral premise may seem obvious here, but not everyone would agree that violence against a person who is attacking you is an example of self-defense. Some might claim that such violence is an unnecessary act of retaliation or revenge.) The role of the nonmoral premise, then, is to affirm that the general moral principle does indeed apply to the particular case.
Unfortunately, both moral and nonmoral prem- ises are often left unstated in moral arguments. As
52 Á PART 2: MORAL REASONING
213006_03_039-064_r1_el.qxp:213006_03_039-064_r1_el 8/3/15 9:46 AM Page 52
we noted earlier, making implicit premises explicit is always a good idea, but in moral arguments it is critical. The unseen premises (an argument may have several) are the ones most likely to be dubious or unfounded, a problem that can arise whether an argument is yours or someone else’s. Too many times, unstated premises are assumptions that you may be barely aware of; they might be the true, unacknowledged source of disagreement between you and others. No premise should be left unex- amined. (More about assessing the truth of prem- ises in the next section.)
The general guidelines discussed earlier about uncovering unstated premises apply to moral arguments—but we need to add a proviso. Remem- ber, in a moral argument, as in any other kind of argument, you have good reason to look for implicit premises if there is a logical gap between premises, and the missing premise is not simply common sense. And any premise you supply should be both plausible and fitting. But note: The easiest way to identify implied premises in a moral argument is to treat it as deductive. Approaching moral arguments this way helps you not only find implied premises but also assess the worth of all the premises.
For example:
1. The use of capital punishment does not deter crime.
2. Therefore, the use of capital punishment is immoral.
This is an invalid argument. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from it. The argument needs a premise that can bridge the gap between the current premise and the conclusion. So we should ask,