What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

LOL, ofc you can damage a rock.  We do it all the time.  It's called mountaintop removal.  Damage doesn't depend on something being a system.  That you're missing nine fingers is damage regardless of whether or not you had any plan to do something with them.  Just as chopping the fingers off of a corpse is to damage that corpse. 

I'll make a quick response because I don't feel like reading all this crap at the moment. I may not get to it for some time. I am interested in doing as you suggest and reading about intuitivism if you would be gracious enough to provide some links. In the meantime I'll simply point out that you are wrong, and the reason you are wrong was included in my last post, so your making this argument is just an example of you not engaging my objections and simply blathering on repeating things and making arguments without actually engaging the counter-arguments. When you don't engage my objections, and simply repeat your arguments on the pretext that I haven't shown sufficient understanding of how you are right, you are explicitly acknowledging that you aren't engaging. For you to accuse me of not engaging, despite having done so, when you, in this very post, show that you are not engaging my objections, is laughably hypocritical.

Now, onto why taking the top off a mountain doesn't qualify. In some loose sense it might qualify as 'damage' but qualifying as damage alone doesn't make it harm. That's the missing or implied part of the definition. By your own definition, harm is bad. Thus if it isn't bad, it cannot be harm. How is taking the top off a mountain objectively bad? Feel free to fill in the details because you haven't yet.

Anyway, I'll likely not get to the rest of your reply until Tuesday. In the meantime, if you have some links, that would be appreciated. If you can say how taking the top off a mountain is bad without either referring to subjective goals and wants, or recursively circling back to your assertion that harm is bad, it would be appreciated.

So, I'm out.

One more quickie. I found one link, but would appreciate more. I will read, but I'll note that SEP says the following:

Ethical Intuitionism was one of the dominant forces in British moral philosophy from the early 18th century till the 1930s. It fell into disrepute in the 1940s, but towards the end of the twentieth century Ethical Intuitionism began to re-emerge as a respectable moral theory. It has not regained the dominance it once enjoyed, but many philosophers, including Robert Audi, Jonathan Dancy, David Enoch, Michael Huemer, David McNaughton, and Russ Shafer-Landau, are now happy to be labelled intuitionists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/

(One last comment. A brief glance suggests that the epistemology of intuitionism has much in common with Reformed Epistemology. If you're going to go that route, providing it pans out as I suspect, you'll need to show how reformed epistemology fails with respect to things like sensus divinitatas, while intuitionism succeeds, if in fact they are both making essentially the same epistemological assumptions.)

Again, forgive me, but the article immediately suggests a line of attack.

These seemings are not beliefs, for something can seem true even though one does not believe it, e.g., it may seem true that there are more natural numbers than even numbers, but we know that is false, so do not believe it.

If this seeming with even and odd numbers can be wrong, why should we trust such seemings on propositions such as yours that "harm is bad?" This may seem to you to be self-evident, but seemings can be wrong, so your having such a seeming does not put your belief that harm is bad on a sound footing. How do you get it onto a sound footing?

As a parenthetical note, this seems to run alarmingly parallel to notions such as the Stoic concept of phantasia katalepsis, which has significant problems. I don't think you're going to ultimately succeed going down this route, but I will continue to do as you suggest and read about intuitionism and try to understand it so I can be charitable and engage your arguments instead of us just talking past one another. In the meantime, I suggest you engage in reverse and understand why intuitionism isn't dominant in the field and grapple with the objections of those that do dominate the field and not simply shrug them off and repeat yourself because you disagree with mainstream philosophy and are beholden to your intuitionist views.