I struggle to understand how logic doesn't validate the deduction of a moral judgement that's not present in the first premise, even if we add a second premise?
I might not be profound upon the matter, since I'm still learning and trying to understand, but if you found it boggling to understand my question, you may explain to me in detail the following text from the book 'Philosopher's Toolkit':
"The logical point
If you were to construct an argument taking ‘Stealing Jimmy’s toys upsets him’ as your first (and only) premise, it would not be a logically valid argument that concluded, ‘Therefore, stealing Jimmy’s toys is wrong’. To make the argument valid, you would need to add a second premise:‘Stealing toys is wrong’ or ‘Upsetting Jimmy is wrong’. In both cases, you would have added something not present in your first premise – a moral judgement or prescription. The necessity of this second premise is often held to show that one cannot derive an ought from an is, or a value from a mere fact"
