What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

It's easy to call, I keep telling you the same thing.  Perhaps you ought to wonder why you're incapable of meeting that low bar?

That harm is objective in the manner discussed by moral theorists is a simple matter of definition.  If this is not enough for you...then..Jorm.....just allow yourself to say so.  Allow yourself to say, "yes..okay, that's objective in that way but that way is not enough for me, i find it unsatisfying".

Asked and answered already. I've offered a couple of ways forward on this, but it's obvious that demonstrating your claims isn't your interest here. You simply want to keep asserting the same things, believing that you're right, and repeating yourself instead of responding to the points made in response. That you have here simply repeated what has already been pointed out to you is a) a straw man, and b) a red herring, simply underscores where the river of illogic is flowing from.

Now, if you don't intend to present your argument again so that you can respond to my counter-arguments, which you haven't done yet, then I think we're through here. You can continue to believe that you're right, and your refusing to even challenge yourself on that score practically assures that you will come to no other conclusion, and meanwhile I and other philosophers who can plainly see your errors will simply go on dismissing you.

Actually, I shouldn't given you've been an uncooperative and irrational dick, but I'll extend yet one more olive branch. My understanding is that Harris' claim as to what constitutes a valid moral realism has been routinely panned as being bad philosophy. Do you think that Harris' argument was successful? If not, and given that it appears, prima facie, that one can draw a homomorphism between his moral realism and yours, in what way does your moral realism distinguish itself from Harris'. If it doesn't and apparently professional philosophers in the main don't agree with Harris, on what exactly are you resting your confidence that your theory is correct?