The issue with the chair is that the semantics of the question imply that an object possesses a quality that it does not have. Let's consider a disjunction:
Either X is hungry or X is full.
Seems like a reasonable definition. Now let's consider two statements:
The rain is hungry.
The rain is full.
Uh-oh. Rain does not have the appropriate quality. If you have defined "full" to mean "not hungry", then you could argue that "The rain is full" is true, but it is misleading. One should not say such things if one's goal is to communicate clearly.
The situation with "amoral" is not quite as clear as with "hungry" vs. "full", but the word has accumulated some connotations beyond "not moral". Thus, it is logically correct and a non-sequitur: according to strict (impoverished, one might say) definitions it is true, but it violates the expected pattern of implications that allow one to be brief yet clear when using language.