Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[The Grand Nudger]

They're not equivalent claims though, unless by bad you mean using it is immoral? The word bad here is a little ambiguous perhaps, do we mean bad as in immoral or bad as in bad for our health? The latter I would accept is objectively true, the former I am dubious about. 

The claim of metaethical utilitarian realism is that the badfors -are- the moral facts, yes.  

What you're saying here isn't that it's all subjective, in translation.  You're saying that the assertion purports to report a fact, does report a fact, but does not report the fact it purports to report.  Objectivism contextualizes these as invalid moral assertions.  This respects and allows for the expression of their possible truth value in other real or hypothetical contexts.  The fact it does report is (or can be) objectively true, and objectively true as you see it, leaving the translation.   Just doesn't matter, cause that's not what morality is about. Or, that can't be established to some standard.

None of which demonstrates that causing harm is objectively wrong, all we have is a broad consensus based on what appears to be an expedient, but subjective opinion. That there is a broad consensus of opinion, is not objective evidence that the opinion is objectively true of course. 

I can see why evolution might have "hardwired" us to view causing unnecessary or excessive harm as bad. If that's what you are implying? 

This may in the end be an impasse.  I can't write off observational evidence, anecdotal evidence, and scientific evidence all converging on an apparent fact that is itself plainly and openly expressed in direct self reports of the phenomena as mere opinion.  I am satisfied by the mountain of evidence which persuades me of what I feel should be a rather trivial statement of fact.  I include harm in moral consideration because when we moralize we are considering harm.  Harm is one of the things that morality is about.  A brute fact.  If we omitted harm we would not be talking about morality anymore.  As a matter of objectivity, a matter of completeness and accuracy, of a statement purporting to report a fact and reporting that fact, and reporting on that fact accurately, harm cannot be excluded from a consideration of moral basis claims or truth assertions regardless of the metaethical reality in which such moral assertions are made.  

I usually just accept it as an expedient component of moral discourse, imagine the kind of world where human violence was never checked either by the individual or society, even life in the worst prisons wouldn't compare. Though I am still dubious this makes causing harm objectively immoral, as expedient to avoid something is not quite the same, and of course again I'd say this must be relative. Where harm were considered necessary, to avoid a greater harm for example. 

Well it forms part of my moral worldview, and I'd say this was true for most people, and societies. that they place some sort of limit or moratorium on causing unnecessary harm, though I am not sure what you're claiming is objectively evidenced here, as I said, I see no evidence that causing unnecessary harm is objectively immoral, though I can reason that it is expedient to try and avid and prevent it, and so I include it in my subjective moral evaluations. 
How much stems from evolved emotions and instincts, and how much from reason is harder to evaluate, but I suspect they're all at play.

You don't tend to hear about necessary evils from people who think they've done nothing objectively wrong.  But, yes, I agree that once we've decided to do evil shit we're going to have a hard time justifying that by any rational or objective thought process.  It's just bang bang time.  That's who we are. In an objectivists understanding, this is moral failure.