What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have a problem with objectivity. . . only with the idea that value is objective.

Why a value?  Is a value the only thing in all of existence that you think can't be objective..and can't objective how, objective as you see it, or objective as moral theorists are discussing it?

The rest is just filler, and me laughing at you, but figuring out the above would resolve this disagreement handily, like the example of the disagreement on the issue of a fire extinguishers value, lol.

---

Either something has intrinsic value, or that value is assigned to it by a subjective agent.

Or both. ...or neither.   There may be some intrinsically worthless thing that no one subjectively values.  

No.  It's a way of describing an obvious circular argument in a way that I think will make the point salient to an atheist.  This is because atheists often refer to Biblical circularity as a major flaw in Christian argumentation.

What's obviously circular about grounding a value in an objective natural property?  
(or objective non natural property, if you prefer)

Does a corpse value oxygen?

Does it require oxygen?  Then..no.  

Does a rock?  

I'd say no again.

Does a guy sitting in his car trying to breath in as much carbon monoxide as he can, or a man with a rope around his neck?  How about a woman who walks into a room and sees her young toddler struggling with a plastic bag on his head?

Here again we see a creature for which oxygen is objectively value, that simply doesn't value that oxygen.  

We have here a collection of non-agents, and of subjective agents.  In none of these cases is the value of oxygen clearly resolved.

Hey, remember to add the humble aerobic life of the world for which oxygen is valuable despite their having no mind with which to produce a subjective evaluation!  In any case, that last bit of your statement was pigeon chess nonsense, and my answers to each question remains what they were from the outset.

As I said earlier, once a subjective agent has determined that it considers something of value, then there can be objective contributors to his thinking process.  If I decide that pain is harm, and harm is bad, then I can claim a broken leg to be an objective harm.  But to then say that broken legs are objectively bad is wrong-- it's just a projection of a subjective agent onto an objective state.

If you say so...?

Maybe the road to philosophical truth is to stab steak knives through your eyes and bash your head against a table top until you break through to the "other side"-- if you think so, then you may feel that's a good action.  Now, most of us have instincts that tell us this is counterproductive.  We view acts like that as deeply bad.
[/quoting]
Diving into your own absurdities, again, rather than addressing anything I;ve explained to you.

[quote]

And yet. . . it's all just states of matter, no?  Remember my previous definition of morality-- that it mediates among feelings, ideas and the objective environment, but that it is mainly predicated on feeling.

"Mainly" is not "entirely".........I could link a dictionary for that, if you;d like. 

Assuming you assume that steak knife philosophy is bad, do you have a rational reason for that, or is it because the idea of doing that seems abhorrent?  My prediction is that you'll go one step back, but not back to the root, which is where the issue of the roots of value must go in order to be valid.

I doubt that I'd have much success rationally arguing anything about philosophy with a person who wasn't making such a claim disingenuously.  

---