Vaughn Reading 22-29

Moral conclusions cannot logically follow from a nonmoral premise alone. For example, the fact that abortions are frequently performed does not imply that abortion is immoral.

Specific moral conclusions cannot be drawn from a moral premise alone. A moral premise needs an accompanying nonmoral premise affirming that a specific action falls under the general class stated in the moral premise.

Demonstration in Bioethics (Mrs. Johnson Case):

  • Moral Principle: Treating people without consent violates autonomy.

  • Nonmoral Fact: Performing surgery on Mrs. Johnson without consent is treating a person without consent.

  • Moral Conclusion: Surgery on Mrs. Johnson without consent is wrong.

Nature of Moral Disagreements:
Disputes may arise from conflicting views on nonmoral facts, even if moral principles are shared.

Implicit Premises in Moral Arguments:
Premises are often unstated and represent assumptions that weaken arguments. To identify these:

  • Detect logical gaps between premises and conclusions.

  • Supply missing premises to strengthen arguments.

Example (In Vitro Fertilization):

  • Incomplete Argument: In vitro fertilization is unnatural; therefore, it should not be used.

  • Restructured Valid Argument: In vitro fertilization is unnatural. If any unnatural process should not be used, then in vitro fertilization should not be used.

  • Critical Assessment: The unstated premise that unnatural is morally impermissible is debatable.

Evaluation of Nonmoral and Moral Premises:

  • Nonmoral premises are checked by empirical data or conceptual definitions.

    • Examples: "Incidents of serious crime have doubled" requires testing.   

  • Moral premises need good reasons; supported by:

    1. Higher-Level Moral Principles (e.g., autonomy).

    2. Moral Theories (e.g., Utilitarianism).

    3. Considered Moral Judgments (e.g., unnecessary pain is wrong).

Counterexamples can test moral premises; for instance, is it always wrong to kill an innocent person?

Procedure for Assessing Arguments:

  1. Understand the text thoroughly.

  2. Identify the conclusion clearly.

  3. Isolate both moral and nonmoral premises.

Case Analysis (The Jones Case):

  • Joneses' son had a curable condition treated with prayer; the child died.

  • Main Conclusion: The Joneses acted immorally.

  • Deductive Argument: The Joneses allowed their child to die preventably; this act is morally reprehensible.

Evaluation: Valid deductive structure; moral premises supported by ethical theories and principles. Rejection typically rests on religious grounds.