What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Do you really wish to maintain an insistence that harm cannot be objectively quantified?  Unless you wish to maintain that insistence..then..no, you haven't shown that my argument, that harm can be objective, has failed to establish my conclusion.  That conclusion being..that harm is objective.  That, because you can meausre the depth of a wound an establish that this wound is not a mind dependent fact...it is objective as moral theorists discuss objectivity.

Simple.

It's not a question of quantification, so don't go there. You haven't shown that harm can be objective in a manner which is consistent with your moral theory. Any other manner is simply irrelevant. Until and unless you can show that harm has an objective definition that is consistent with your assertion that harm is bad, then my counter-argument that you haven't established your conclusions succeeds. If harm could be objectively defined, I suppose that might form the basis of a moral theory, but since you haven't even gotten that far, that would remain a bridge yet to be crossed. Again, I don't know what moral theorists discuss, but I know what you have discussed, and that is that harm is morally bad and that this assertion is objectively true. I'm not interested in what you imagine moral theorists to have in mind because, among other things, you've already shown that you have quite an imagination. If you are defending a moral realist theory that you have in mind but have not asserted and that we have not discussed, then you are simply being silly. If you are referencing arguments you haven't made and discussions that you haven't had, and concluding that in those arguments and discussions you are right, then you might as well go back to your room and jerk off because you will be accomplishing more there than you are here. I have no interest or need to make any points about things you haven't brought forward here, and it would be silly for me to do so. It is however rather silly for you to believe and assert that you are right regarding some unvoiced moral realism when you can't even establish the things that you have given voice to here.