What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Teleology is meaningfully subjective.  This simply isn't the problem for moral objectivity that you think it is, is all.  The answer to the whole foundations of sand question is that moral objectivity cannot be, and in point of fact is not grounded on any teleology.  

No, but benny's point was that the definition of bad was based on goals, and goals are inherently teleological, and teleology being subjective makes the definitions of bad you gave, being dependent on it, itself necessarily subjective. It isn't a problem for moral realism qua moral realism. It is only a problem for your moral realism. And benny's point appears to be sound. My point was that harm as a foundation of morals depends upon harm being bad, but if bad is necessarily subjective, and harm is defined in terms of bad, then harm is also necessarily subjective. You need to ground harm on something other than bad, otherwise you are just arguing in a circle and haven't justified an objective account of either harm or bad.