What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

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

You said that harm is objective because it is quantifiable.  The problem is not with the analogy but with your claim.

Correct, that;s what makes it objective..but not every objective thing is morally relevant.  

How is harm related to good or bad exactly?  You've defined harm as bad.

I've defined harm as morally relevant.  Personally, I accept that there at least can be such a thing as "good" harm, or, at the very least, a good reason to do harm. But, yes...harm does seem to be bound up in those things we describe as bad.

Don't you think? Sometimes the harm is real, sometimes it's imagined. Good thing there's a way to test between the two, eh?

That's not a natural relationship but an arbitrary one that you've drawn, likely out of biologically rooted motivations.  

It's not arbitrary, but its actually a good thing that it's "not natural".   If my standard were whatever was natural...well...I can only say it so many times.  Fallacy.  

Failing such motives, there's nothing from my declaring that having a short penis is bad in the same arbitrary way that you are claiming harm is bad.

Failing such motives I would lack motive, but harm would still be relevant to morality and still be quantifiable.

Unless your belief that harm is bad is rooted in something objective, it's no different.  The only objective property that you've linked to harm to suggest that it is bad is that it is quatifiable.  As noted, I can make the same link to penis length.  Analogy confirmed.

You can make it anything you like..but this will only mean that we're not talking about the same thing.  Your idea of "morality" is something about penises.  Fine.  Nothing you have to say about a dick based "morality" has anything to do with what I'm talking about.