I don’t understand this Philosophy question and need help to study.
In this moral argument my friend stated that, “it is illegal to be in a car without having your seatbelt fastened, regardless if you’re sitting in the passenger seat, it is still illegal..” A moral argument, like any argument, has premises and a conclusion, it makes a statement regarding what is morally right and wrong or what ought to be the case. Moral arguments also contains a descriptive premises about the world or human nature. Descriptive and prescriptive premises are two concepts. A descriptive premise is when the statement is clear and to the point. When my friend said, it is illegal to be in a car without having your seatbelt fastened this statement would be a descriptive premises because it is saying exactly what it means with no way of getting around it. On the other hand, a prescriptive premises is a statement that is not as obvious as a descriptive claim, but recommends how something ought to be. For example, You should wear your seatbelt when you’re sitting in the car even if you’re not the driver. This is a prescriptive premises because it is recommending you do something. The main conclusion is that you should have a seatbelt on regardless when you’re sitting inside a vehicle. This argument assumes a suggestion because of the opinion stated.