What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Then you have a problem with brute facts.  Well, okay, and?  Good luck fleshing out any of your objections without a reference to one.

: shrugs :

If, however, you actually have no disagreement to the existence of harm and it's status as a measurable and thus objective thing, then you have no valid objection to a harm based objectivity as moral theorists are discussing it.  Yes, you also have desires.  Yes, those desires are compelling.  Yes, those desires can be in concordance with harm based objectivity and they may not be.  Yes, those desires and that harm can be in concordance with instrumental goods like survival benefit...and sometimes they may not be.

What's the problem...wheres the sand?

I don't have an objection to brute facts in general but to your specific proposal that "harm is bad" is a brute fact, which makes your opening salvo here yet another straw man. You can't even define harm objectively, much less show that it is a brute fact. I have every objection to harm being objective as you have defined harm as bad, and there is nothing objectively bad about a wound or a pile of rubble. It is a bare assertion, not a brute fact. That you think it is a brute fact when you can't establish that it is a fact at all is laughable. Moral theorists do not talk about it in the way you have, so again, the objection is not to moral theorists and moral theories but specifically to you and Harris' moral theories. I have no objection to the existence of and measurability of wounds and piles of rubble, because they are not themselves necessarily harm. You've skipped a step there. I do have an objection to the existence of harm as a measurable and existing thing because I have an objection to your notion that wounds and piles of rubble are necessarily harm. So no, your belief that I have no disagreement as to whether harm exists or is measurable is a product of your confusion regarding the distinction between piles of rubble and wounds as objective things and them being things that objectively constitute harm. You're simply confused here, Khem, and your blatant misrepresentation of my position here shows it.

(ETA: As a practical matter, brute facts need to be mutually agreed upon as they cannot be established through reasoned argument. Is it possible that harm is bad is a brute fact? Sure, but two things marshall against it. First, it's not universally agreed that it is a brute fact. Second, harm doesn't have an objective definition. A brute fact must be a fact first, and something that lacks an objective definition is not a fact. As far as this discussion goes, I'm not going to be persuaded by facts that aren't mutually agreed upon just as you would not be persuaded by someone claiming that X or Y is true because the fact that God exists is a brute fact. Be a little realistic. The idea that harm is bad appears necessarily subjectivist, as it does not appear that harm even has a definition outside of such.)