What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're simply ignoring the elephant in the room, Khem.  Neither harm nor bad has been given a foundation that is objective. 

Haven't I, though?  Can we not demonstrate when harm has been done?  Is it impossible to do this?  If I tell you that someone has been harmed, am I completely bereft of any means by which to show you that this harm exists?  Benny sees the harm of some kid getting stomped and it turns his guts.  You and I can quantify the weight of the rubble and the volume of the families tears.  We can see the wounds and the pools of blood.  These are some of the things we are referring to when we employ the term "harm".  When we say "john has been harmed, john has harmed another, harm has been done".  We refer to other things as well..sure, some of them may not be objective as these are.

Obviously, if you contend that there is no or can be no such thing as objective harm in the sense that moral theorists are referring then you will also have issues with teleology based on it's reduction.

I -want- to burn down the trailer, remember? You're just asserting to the contrary to be contrarian, this objection has been dealt with multiple times. It may be the case that we want this or that thing, but that is moral compulsion (and moral failure), again, not the same question as the underlying moral justification for a realist system. You're not engaging with the proposition at all, just asserting otherwise.

Insurance fraud is bad...even if the guy who owns the trailer wants the money. But why? Because defrauding the insurer causes harm. OFC the insurer doesn;t want to be harmed, but him not wanting to be harmed is no more what makes it bad than the fraudster wanting money makes it good. Our desires are a subjectivist justification...and that's simply not what realism is talking about.