ABSTRACT
Many philosophers are not convinced that there need be a breakdown in moral argument. Philosophers believe that moral opinions rest on common evidence, they are forced to locate the cause of moral disagreement in the evidence's complexity: often, experience and imagination are necessary in assessing it. In so far as philosophers construct a paradigm in their search for 'the unity of the facts of human good and harm', they are not far removed from the so-called scientific rationalists and their talk of proper functions, primary purpose and so on. For the rationalist, the possibility of the mother's death or injury, the economic situation of the family, the provision of good facilities for the children, and so on, would be extremely important. Injury may not be an overriding reason for avoiding the action which leads to it, as injustice is, but its being a reason is justified because injury is necessarily a bad thing.
