What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

We have been discussing whether harm has an objective definition. Try to keep up. Saying that harm is immoral because it's bad, and it's bad because it's harm, and harm is bad because it's immoral is nothing more than one big circle jerk. In order to establish that harm is objectively immoral you have to establish that it is objectively bad. You can't appeal to your conclusion that harm is immoral to establish that harm has an objective definition when harm not having an objective definition is what puts your claim that harm is immoral in doubt. That's question begging 101. Since you appear not to be able to keep all these facts straight in your head simultaneously, I suggest you concentrate on the matter in front of you, showing that harm has an objective definition, before you go skipping off to other matters. You're only confusing yourself by doing so. Let's stick with the trailer burning for now to simplify discussion. You wanting to burn down the person's trailer because you wanted to achieve certain goals is not the only want you could have had. You could have wanted the person to collect on his insurance policy. Your wanting the one thing, regardless of whether it corresponds with an objective moral or not, is a contingent fact of the universe. You could just as easily have not wanted it, or wanted something different. Since it is not a necessary feature of the universe, it cannot be an objective fact of the universe and so it being bad isn't necessarily the case, but only contingently so based upon you having certain wants. Appealing to the wants in and of itself cannot objectively ground harm, and if you cannot objectively ground what is harm, then harm too becomes something that exists solely in the eye of the beholder. Something that exists solely in the beholder cannot possibly form the basis of an objective moral system. It's entirely possible that morals exist independently of harm or wants, but until you establish some other basis than harm, which as we've seen appears subjective, you haven't provided an objective basis for morals.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a desire to do something can underwrite an objective moral or not, but rather whether the specifics here, namely harm, can underwrite an objective moral. In order to do that, you need to show that harm can be objectively defined. I do not need to show that harm is not objective, which seems to be your point in pointing out that harm being in some sense subjective doesn't necessarily rule out it also being objective, as I do not have a burden of proof in the matter. You on the other hand have claimed that harm is bad, and that it being bad is an objective fact. That is a claim you have yet to substantiate. You tried to appeal to the dictionary definition of bad to show that it correlated with harm, but since said dictionary definitions were shown to ultimately depend on subjective viewpoints, they failed to ultimately provide an objective foundation for the definition of harm. You brought up that you thought a burnt out trailer was objectively harmful. I pointed out that it is only harm from a specific perspective or viewpoint, the very definition of subjective. What else have you brought me to establish that harm has an objective definition? The only other thing, and this in your last reply, is that the act is immoral and therefore bad by definition. However since your goal in establishing that harm has an objective definition is so that you can justify your claim that harm is immoral, that's simply begging the question, and is a logical no-no. What else have you brought me which provides an objective definition of harm?

(The problem is not that other things can make something morally wrong but rather that the things that you are appealing to in order to define what is objectively wrong are not themselves objective facts. Harm, as far as I can see, has no objective basis. At the very least you haven't provided one. It's not my job to show that harm is not an objective basis for morals, but rather your job to show that it is. Referring to the possibility that it has an objective basis other than subjective desires is rather moot when following directly on the heels of your attempting to justify its objective nature by appeals to subjective motives. If you agree with me that a person's wants do not make something objective, and I agree, then what does make harm an objective description of things? Take the example of the burned out trailer. What is objectively bad about a burned out trailer? And if you say because it's harmful, I'm gonna hit you over the head with a brick or find you a room with a view.)