Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration.  Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so?  This is why kicking a rock is amoral, whereas kicking you in the rocks..is not.  You could intentionally kick a rock, or unintentional kick a rock.  Still ammoral.  Kiocking you -in- the rocks is only modified to be -less- immoral in the lack of intent..but even then...carelessness, a lack of intent but surplus of apathy, is often considered immoral.  The only time we hand out a free pass is in the odd event that your nuts just happened to be where my foot was.  It's a hard argument to make, particularly if you're making it to the one who's nuts here kicked.  

What's this correlation and causation bit?  An axiom isn't proven, it's a foundational claim or assertion upon which all other claims follow.  A properly basic belief.  Ideally, it would be self evident, as the foundation of harm in morality is self evident.  

Khem, if you did say we're not removing our subjective natures from it, that's all you had to say, we're done. Thank you for finally making that clear.

It's only about the third time I've told you that, specifically, and twice as many more again in thread.  

We may standardize things and call them 'law' but that doesn't mean it's the correct, or best, approach and even those who agree about objective morality can disagree with the application of these laws and penalties on the same grounds. So the entire statement you made about it is utterly irrelevant. If you already agree about the above statement, breath is wasted going further.

Another version of "that's like, your opinion, man".  Yes, it is my opinion, is my opinion wrong?  Is it wrong because I;m a subjective agent?  Is it somehow not objective, on account of it?  If my opinion were different, would rape be less harmful?  Explaining that and how harm is fundamental doesn't tell us how to best approach things like agency, or moral desert, it simply lays out a necessary foundation for an objective morality.  That it;s the "best" way to approach an objective morality is made apparent in that we approach morality no other way, it's what we're talking about when we talk about morality.  Inescapable and self evident.  It' not a magic wand.  It won't immediately provide you with one answer to rule them all that holds in every situation or that every person has access to or can correctly discern.  It can't and it doesn't have to. It's simply the kernel of fact around which any pursuant answer is formed.

I'm saying law does not automatically equate with morality, dude, fuck. It's based more around what people in power want because under the circumstances their subjective opinions matter more than ours. So why even bring up law?