What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

I've already laid out how and in what ways harm is objective.  That qualifies for objectivity, or mind independence, as moral theorists are discussing it.  So that's just..frankly, that.

No, you haven't, at least not consistent with the moral theorist in question, namely you. If you want to assert some other theory of morals other than that harm is objectively bad, then bring it. So far that's the only thing you've brought and I have shown that it is not objectively defined, or more properly, that you haven't succeeded in objectively defining it as this particular moral theorist, you, have talked about it. I cannot address arguments or theories you haven't introduced. I have addressed the moral theory you introduced and shown it to be wanting.