What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, we ought to care about this and that, and any rational being could be made to understand why in reference to objective values...but that won't actually mean that they will.  A moral failure..in the objectivists schema, is a rational failure.

Why ought we?  On what basis do you say we ought to do anything?  14 pages in, and you haven't answered this.

I focus more on the ought not's than the oughts, myself, but if you're actually drawing a blank as to why you should care about this, by this point in your life...and after so many conversations and explanations preceding, I doubt that any explantion of mine this time will reach you in any way that it failed to reach you before. Not that I believe this is anything more than another attempt to waste any effort spent on you and pivot to some other thing.

I don't have the patience for more than one line of your ridiculous shit at a time..so save yourself the trouble.

My answer is that there's nothing objectively wrong with any material state.  However, feelings provide a context.  People feel bad about the idea of having their daughters raped and murdered, so they negotiate a rule: "In our society, it will be considered wrong to rape and murder."  If they didn't give a shit, they wouldn't have the feelings, and wouldn't bother to arrive at the rule.  It's not the existence of rape which causes the rule to be made-- it's the feelings of subjective agents about the rape.

There you go again. 

An objectivist can simply explain to you that rape is wrong because it is harmful.  They can then lay out in explicit detail all of the harm they are referring to. This is what would make it objectively wrong as moral theorists discuss it, which is all that it has to do. If you don't care whether or not you cause harm then you don't care whether or not you cause harm...rape remains harmful regardless.  You should care, regardless. Your question above has been answered in a single sentence..but because you're irrational (and potentially fucked up in the head to an unreachable degree, lol) then no explanation would be expected to reach you...in this example, ofc. We make the rule because we recognize that it is wrong. That you can't...again...in the example...is a you problem, not moral realisms problem.

Which is just a restatement of what you quoted, at any rate.

The final refuge of "why should I care" for the otherwise unreachable...is that somebody will hit you over the head with a brick. Base and simple self interest, if nothing else.

---

-and just to piss all over you before you get the chance to waste another post...

No, that won't make a moral proposition any less objective, as has already been explained to you multiple times and at length, in this thread... and so many others.