What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

My version of moral realism is moral naturalism, not realist intuitivism (though, ultimately, Ill be reduced to it if you fight tooth and nail for no other reason than fighting tooth and nail, and you'' only be fighting tooth and nail by explicit reference to intuitions).  I'm noting that your -subjectivist- objections are toothless against both.  They are inconsequential in the case of intuitivist moral non naturalism and elaborative natural realism.

Can harm or damage be objective?  Yes.  Can they be natural properties?  Yes.  Done and done.  There is no more to -be- done.  You can still disagree in the end but you cannot rationally or sensibly disagree with either of these statements if you understand what moral theorists are discussing. Subjectivist invocations are patently incapable. As to links, let wonder lead you to knowldge, I know better than to insert myself in that because that will only give you further impetus to argue by sheer fact of my insertion.

You can find all of this yourself, and I trust you to do so, even though I dont expect it to produce agreement between us. I still hold out the hope, though.. lol...not that we'll ultimately agree, but that you will at least discover why your objections thusfar have been inept. Best case scenario, you find better objections that I just have to throw my hands in their air towards!