Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

What are these 2 levels?

I had hoped at least the first one would be obvious, since I named it: Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences. And maybe appeal to incredulity.
Plus it is factually untrue that that people who believe morality is entirely subjective can't condemn Nazi war crimes. They can and usually do.

As a side note, the Nazis, who largely subscribed to OM, did not seem to often consider their atrocities to be crimes.

In my view I don't think that either side, can make a definitive argument for the conclusion. However I don't think that it is incorrect, to appeal to the consequences of the logical conclusion of a view (especially when adherents to that view don't behave in a manner inconsistent with that belief). This is part of what is meant, by appealing to an innate sense concerning objective morality. Now I would agree, that just because we don't like the consequences or it gives a negative emotional reaction, that we cannot logically conclude that it is either true or false. This would be the fallacy that you speak of. But I find a dissonance between what is said that subjective moralist believe, and how they behave. Requiring you to accept the consequences of said belief is not illogical or incoherant. Your example about condemning the Nazis is apropos.

I can't comment intelligently on the Nazis position on OM (perhaps they had varying views as the label doesn't require any particular holding that I know of) Also, an incorrect belief, doesn't change whether the topic at hand, is objective or subjective by nature (regardless of the subjects belief about it's nature). Here I normally ask the question though. What is it based on the subject that makes it wrong? Is it merely against your tastes or preferences? With a different subject thus a different basis, isn't their position equally valid; subjectively?

Now I find that most people behave as if there is a moral realism. That morals are objective, and actually honorable or wrong, regardless of the subject, time, or culture. That there is an innate sense, that some things are definitely wrong, outside of the subject (culture), and anything within them. Subjective is not the default position (neither is objective). And as I said, I don't think either can make a strong argument that it is one way or the other. However I find that the behavior of people shows more about what they really believe, rather than any statements or what they think the believe. It's similar to the post modern notion held by some, of objective truth or that of philosophical nihilism. In reality, they quickly betray what they say it is the believe.