Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

---

No, you are incorrect;  I do not equate harm with immoral.

If you say so.  Your own faith, however, disagrees.  

Also as you agreed with the example from C.S. Lewis; it was the act in which no damage was done, that was immoral, and not the one in which harm was committed.   So as we seem to agree, the wrong in this example is in the intent, not the objective damage done. 

The intent -to do what-?  I can intend to eat chocolate ice cream..moral decision or not, quick, go!  There;s no such thing as intent in a vacuum.  Intent is an inherently referent term.  You're not correcting me, you simply fail to recognize that you are agreeing with me, as your faith agrees with me...as everyone...anywhere, at any time...who has ever spoken about morality..agrees with me.  Harm is the foundation of morality.  We may not always agree on what is or is not harmful.....but we're -always- discussing harm.  At least, until you find a way to cogently disagree.  Good luck on that one.

Now one could say that it is in the intent to harm (in which I think you lose your position for objectiveness in your view).  Could I can steal from a rich man, because I don't intend him harm, I just wish for my greater well being (would this be moral)?  And as I said, I it's not about how we know what is moral, but the nature of morality itself.  Why is it right or wrong?

See how your intent..in this instance, doesn't matter...since you -did- harm that man?  Theft is wrong because it harms the person whom you've stolen from..by depriving them of their property.  Sure, you might imagine that you've done a bad thing for a good reason..but looking at the quality of your good reason...I doubt you have it in you.  

Just got pissed off, and harmed my phone from a sudden impact with the wall.

Did you, is there a moral component there that I;m missing?  Was there a dying man on the other end who's phone could only reach you or something?  Are you really this stupid?  Maybe you -did- harm yourself in some meaningfully moral way..since you're going to need that phone in the next five minutes..when you somehow manage to swallow a football on accident?

If you are talking about how we know what is right or wrong, or if X is immoral, then you are on the wrong track. It is about if there is a morality, independent of the subject, in which we can compare right/wrong.  It's not about what is, but what ought. 

No, -that- would be the compulsion to morality.  Handily called..wait for it "Moral compulsion".  Something is wrong because it is harmful.  Why you shouldn't do that thing....is another issue.  Is -that- what you'd like to discuss?  Why do you think that we shouldn't do the wrong thing?  Careful.

As we seen, you made statements which don't agree with "because it causes harm" as being immoral.  It sounds good, but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection (even if it is explicit).  

Which statements would those be?  You've failed to identify one.  

Again, it's not about assessment of if X is moral or not.   It is about morality itself, by which you are making the comparison and can even equate it with moral or immoral.

I'm not making a moral comparison.  I'm flat out telling you that harm is axiomatic to moral systems...worldwide, always has been.  Yours, mine, all of them.  It;s what we're talking about when we talk about good or bad.  We have a million names for it, and a million takes on it......but, they all have that much in common.

---

Ok... lets try this in the form of a logical syllogism.

Premise 1:  That which is harmful is immoral
Premise 2:  Jack accidentally tripped Jill causing her harm.

Conclusion:  Jack behaved immorally.


Is this valid?  You already said that is wasn't once when you agreed with the C.S. Lewis reference.  Now granted that you can change your mind, I don't think that you will.  How would you invalidate this syllogism?