You seem to use a very loose definition of "moral." I don't see any morality inherent in logical statements of the form A->B, B is widely undesirable, therefore A is widely undesirable. If that's a moral argument, then by your definition, there's no such thing as pragmatism or logic.
> I don't see any morality inherent in logical statements of the form A->B, B is widely undesirable, therefore A is widely undesirable.
The moral (or, at least, subjective; whether the particular subjective distinction is "moral" or something else is somewhat of a an arbitrary distinction) part is "B is widely undesirable". Desirability is not a factual premise.
> If that's a moral argument, then by your definition, there's no such thing as pragmatism or logic.
Well, no; that is a moral argument (or at least, an argument that rests on a subjective premise), and it is also an application of logic. Logic doesn't provide premises, it applies based on premises which are either sensory observations (which are inherently subjective) or a priori postulates (which are often subjective moral/aesthetic/etc. value propositions.)
Logic exists, it just doesn't get you to any kind of conclusions about the way things should be or what things you should do without starting with premises that are about the way things should be or what you should do.
