Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

Well, I asked you, and you suggested harm.  I agree.  The great thing about an objective moral standard is that you don't -need- a list, ala the ten commandments (and there we are seemingly assuming that an objective morality would be like a religious decree).  You can use that standard to assess -any- potential situation with moral ramifications..and even to assess whether or not something -is- a moral situation to begin with.  I could suggest refinements and additions..but, ultimately, harm seems to be sufficient as an objective moral standard.  Particularly in that it is positively -inescapable- when discussing morality.  This is exactly what a properly basic belief is taken to be.  An axiom of any system x.  It's an axiom not only for secular moralities..but also religious moralities...the latter of which go to great lengths to insert their gods into the chain..but that;s all it is, an insertion - and a needless one at that.

---

I'm pretty sure you already know what things are right and wrong, don't you?  We have powerful heuristic mechanisms built into us (and into our interactions as a society) for determining that even in the absence of a scholarly treatise or point by point description.  Even if you didn;t know, and had never seen a treatise or a description, and your give a fuck-o-meter was broken..it;s still entirely likely that your behaviors would conform to the standard we use, as we've been selecting each other for fitness along those lines for quite some time now.  You're an accidental "not a rapist" for example.  It's not that you don't do it because you believe it's wrong, but because you simply don't want to.  

How do you reckon that happened?  

---

Just so you are aware.... what you are talking about now is dealing with epistemology, not ontology (as the moral argument is).  So, you are not addressing the moral argument.  Now; I could be mistaken, and this was not your intention, which is fine.  The moral argument is not saying that we know morality through the bible.  It's not even an argument only for Christianity and can stand apart from it.  What you know, how well you or others know it, nor how well you can demonstrate it, change whether or not it is objective.  One might argue, that even discussing these things in this way suggest that it is objective. Here is a link, that discusses what is being talked about in moral objectivism.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_m...alism.html

Also, I noticed that the discussion had veered towards the problem of evil and perceived immorality n the Bible. These and your statements above; don't even make since when argued from a view of moral subjectivism.