Begging the Question Morally

"Begging the question" is not only another way to express "prompting the question". In a more formal and idiomatic context, it also can mean the fallacy of arguing from a premise to a conclusion when the premise is a consequence of (or identical to) the conclusion. If someone is trying to prove that Agnes is older than 40, he or she can't start the proof by assuming that Agnes is 50. Such a proof wouldn't convince anyone, because if "Agnes is older than 40" is in doubt, "Agnes is 50" is in doubt too. An argument begging the question has merely stated that the conclusion being true implies the conclusion is true!

I have noticed that some oversimplified moral reasoning appears to exhibit a fallacy similar to begging the question. If any specific moral decision has two or more alternatives, the "argument" is which alternative is superior to the other(s) (according to some standard of morality). If there are only two alternatives, the "conclusion" is either "alternative X better meets a moral standard" or "alternative Y better meets a moral standard". So begging the question morally consists of arguing for a particular moral choice merely based on the fact that it's "more moral".

A contrived example might make this clearer. If someone is contemplating a relatively trivial act of stealing, the possibilities are steal or not-steal. The conclusion to be argued for is either "this act of stealing better meets a moral standard" or "not carrying out this act of stealing better meets a moral standard". There are many premises or evidence one could use to try to reach one of those two conclusions. But premises like "this act of stealing is bad" won't work as real arguments, because those premises beg the question; the premise is the conclusion.
What makes this act of stealing bad? What parties are involved, and how do those parties relate to each other in a genuine moral standard? If a law enforcement officer of some stripe commandeers something, is that stealing? If a debt collector seizes an item from a debtor, is that stealing?

My reason for bringing this up is not to argue that people who "beg the question morally" are immoral or amoral, but to encourage them to go deeper in their moral considerations. We must demand that our moral standards define what true "Goodness" is, what real "Compassion" looks like, etc. In any given moral argument between people who aren't compulsively wicked or nihilistic, the point of contention is not that one side is in favor of the "good stuff" and therefore the other side is in favor of the "bad stuff". The point is disagreement about the content of the "good stuff". Someone for whom the "good stuff" is either undefined, or defined based on how much it turns or settles one's stomach ("gut"), isn't in a position to argue from, because all he or she can do is beg the question morally. "According to my moral standard, wrongness is defined as any action that upsets me. Action _____ upsets me, so it is self-evidently wrong. In another context, it might not upset me, so in that context it would be self-evidently right or neutral".

Now, I have glossed over an important fact. In any concrete moral decision, more is at work than the processing of a syllogism. Emotions/empathy, creativity, conscience, experience, advice play their parts. For the Christian, the Spirit of God plays its part, too. These non-intellectual parts should not be ignored. Ultimately, after deliberations of any sort, one must choose. The non-intellectual pieces may weigh in on that choice just as the intellectual piece does. All the same, the intellectual piece should at least exist and have something to say beyond begging the question morally.