I've actually read the book already, Ham, and watched his lecture on the subject. I already agree that it is the best basis for morality, I just disagree that it makes it objectively true. Maybe ontologically, as you've said, but that is not what most people mean when they say the words "objectively true", or just refer to morals being objective.
Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective. I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist. Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.
Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective. I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist. Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead