Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

---

It's as transparent as your objections which each, themselves, referred back to harm.  Now you think that you can object by complaining that it wasn't written on a cave wall somewhere?  "Some connection" is all that needed to be shown, since my use of harm as axiomatic is based precisely on the fact that morality and harm are inescapably connected.  Harm is the foundation of all moral systems, that's what makes it axiomatic, that's what makes it a properly basic belief.  No system is complete by simple reference to an axiom..that's why it's called a system.  What moral principle am I smuggling in..have I ever referred to anything other than some relationship to harm?  Have I been less than explicit in anything?

Isn't this a precious freudian slip?  I deliver sarcasm because your comments have been -ridiculous-...they deserve them.  

If he wished to avoid emotional harm to his wife he shouldn't have cheated on her.  After having cheated on her, if faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral decisions, he chooses the most harmful but personally convenient of the field..he is compounding past immorality with present and continued immorality.  At what point do two wrongs make a right?  

OFC I do, since I'm simply explaining to you that your own moral system is also based on harm.  It doesn't matter that what you believe is a ridiculous ghost story, that ridiculous ghost story is the backdrop for a moral system based upon harm.  I don't have to believe in ghost stories for that to be demonstrably true, and your ghost stories being objectively immoral doesn;t change the fact that the attempt was maid.  As I said -waaaaay- way back.  Godism moved on objective, harm based morality like a bitch, but couldn't get there.  

Showing that all moral considerations reduce to some comment on a relationship to harm is -exactly- how one demonstrates the accuracy and utility of their axiom.  You literally can't talk about morality without talking about harm.  No other thing in your moral system, or in anyone else's, has meaning aside from that referent.  

OFC you made it up................?  If you're not talking about harm in any sense meaningful to morality, then you aren't talking about morality, you're playing with words.  You could have stopped, or never did it..since you obviously understand that it was disingenuous...but that's just the kind of guy you are, I guess.  What's the harm, amiright?  

You're not examining any claim of mine.  You're denying what cannot be denied, attempting to change the subject, and flailing around with words and concepts you don't understand.  You wouldn't know objective morality, moral agency, moral desert, moral compulsion, moral reasoning, harm, or virtue if they jumped up and bit you in the ass...and this is why you cannot competently engage with me, anyone else, or yourself.... on the subject.  You are literally incapable.

---

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.

The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.