Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Brian37]

Harm -isn't- a moral theory, it's a moral axiom...a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief of objective harm as a moral axiom is a properly basic belief in objective morality.

Do you think it;s impossible to objectively assess categories and relative weights of harm?  What's more harmful, attempted rape, one instance of manslaughter, two of murder, or genocide?  

OFC things must be inferrred, that's called moral reasoning.  How do you plan on getting a true conclusion from moral reasoning without sound propositions?  

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

Do you wish to harm others or be harmed?  Can a truly immoral society survive and if it could would you live there?  We can go high or low with this one.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.

Yes, because allowing harm to the Egyptian first born over a beef you have with an adult is so moral. By your logic a cop is allowed to shoot a toddler because their daddy was arrested for robbing a bank.