What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

Evo biology does care about the individual's in those societies prospering, and individuals in your societies don't prosper.  That's definitely an evo concern.

It really doesn't..and we're taking liberties here even in discussing it this way, but evolutionarily speaking, a society constantly at war with itself is a good gene mill.  If it offs itself, oh well, fuck it, obviously the good genes were still shit...more space for something else to do the same all over again.

Red in tooth and claw.  

The length of penises can be quantified, too, that doesn't make the length of penises the objective basis for morals.

Is the length of a penis a reference to good and bad in the same way that harm obviously is so?  Poor analogy.

Harm becomes a basis for morals because we care about harm, for biological reasons.

That may be how it evolved, how we originally came to be in this state of affairs... but it is no longer the justification.   Again..contending otherwise is to tank objectivity from an ethical standpoint.  

If we didn't care about harm and were indifferent to it, it would not form a basis of morals.

It would still be the conceptual basis of a harm based objective system.  It doesn't matter, to an objectivist, whether or not you or some other or some group doesn't see it or care about it.  It still causes harm regardless of your ability or level of emotional investment.  That would be a you or a them problem, not a harm based objectivity problem.

It is our caring about harm that is the basis of its moral significance, not it's quantifiability or its existence period.  You only have to ponder the meaning of the word 'harm' itself to see that.  Things that don't adversely affect peoples' interests are not harm.  It is that harm is contrary to peoples' interests that makes it a moral concern.  Not this quantifiability nonsense.  And interest is as biological as it gets.

Plenty of things that don't adversely affect some persons interests are harmful.  Often enough, things that actively promote peoples personal interests are explicitly harmful, themselves.  You;re falling down the same rabbit hole that others have stumbled into time and time again in these thread.  

The justification for a moral schema and a person caring about it are not the same thing. That the apparatus with which we engage in this was leveraged for survival does not mean that the system that we have now will side with survival or that the current system is, as I put it, lunch based. It's the apparatus that's lunch based, but that isn't a problem for objectivity. The only problem for objectivity is if the apparatus were incapable of objectivity.