What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Khem, I'm not making an argument against moral realism as a whole but specifically against your version of moral realism, so this is another straw man you are knocking down without having engaged the point. In your version of moral realism, harm is necessarily bad. If it isn't bad, then it isn't harm, or you've violated your own axiom. I neither need to engage moral realism as a whole nor refute moral realism as a general thesis in order to show that your moral realism is not adequately supported. The example I've provided clearly shows that the example of a rock does not meet the standards for harm according to the axioms you have asserted. As such, the rock example cannot be used to establish that harm has an objective definition. If harm doesn't have an objective definition, then the statement that harm is objectively bad is incoherent. In that case, failing additional arguments, your moral realism argument is not successful. It's not a question of agreeing to disagree, it's a situation where you are asserting inconsistent things and I'm pointing out that this inconsistency is fatal. There is no room to agree to disagree. That you continue to fail to realize this astounds me, given my estimates of your general intelligence, but there it is.

So, thanks for the song and dance about how I'm not engaging moral realism generally, but it's rather beside the point as I freely confess I'm not addressing the possibility that some moral realism, somewhere, is valid. I am addressing your moral realism however, so my failure to address other moral realisms or moral realism in general is irrelevant. That you can't see this, too, is something I'm also astounded by.

Anyway, I'm trying to watch football. I'll get back to you in a few days. I still would like more links if you have them.