Noonan's First Premise

Noonan's First Premise

Let us restate Noonan's first premise:

Premise (1)

 

 

 

 

If x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason, then x is morally wrong.

Premise (1), note, is a moral principle. Call it MP. Why should we believe that MP true?

We might say that MP is obvious by common moral intuition. The problem with this answer is that we have no recourse if there are differences in intuition, as surely there will be. So common moral intuition alone won't help us determine whether or not MP is true. Consequently we must consider any support ethical theory might give the principle.

Noonan is clearly persuaded by the religious conception of morality. This evidently includes both DCT and NLT. Let us consider each in turn.

DCT Argument For Premise (1):

 

 

 

 

1

DCT is true.

 

 

2

If DCT is true, then x is morally wrong iff God forbids x.

 

 

3

God commands love your neighbor as yourself.

 

 

4

If God commands love your neighbor as yourself then God forbids x if x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason.

 

Therefore

5

If x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason, then God forbids x.

3&4

Therefore

6

If x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason, then x is morally wrong.

1,2&5

NLT Argument For Premise (1):

 

 

 

 

1

NLT is true.

 

 

2

If NLT is true, then x is morally wrong if x is inconsistent with relevant proper purpose.

 

 

3

If x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason, then x is inconsistent with relevant proper purpose.

 

Therefore

4

If x is an act of harming a human being and x has no sufficient reason, then x is morally wrong.

1,2&3

The problem with these arguments is simple: neither NLT nor DCT are true, so the first premise in each case is false.

Noonan is sensitive to this problem and anticipates these objections by proposing that 'humanistic' conceptions of morality will likewise support MP. But which? Noonan gives little indication for what he has in mind, so let's briefly canvass KET, SCT, and IRU.

IRU Argument for Premise (1) (informal):

 

 

 

 

Consider two possible worlds very much like ours except that one world has and follows MP while the other world does not. Clearly utility (here, measured by best interests) is maximized in the world with the rule. Hence we seem to have an argument for MP provided IRU is true.

KET Argument for Premise (1) (informal):

 

 

 

 

MP is plausibly an implication of the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

SCT Argument for Premise (1) (informal):

 

 

 

 

MP is, one can well imagine, necessary for social living.

So no matter which ethical theory one we adopt, it seems that MP is easily justified. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, we shall take it that Premise (1) of Noonan's Argument is true.