Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

So it is a fact that harming living beings is wrong?

It is a fact that it is harmful and that humans value health and harmony over pain and misery (barring some massive defect). 

These sound like objective statements.  I'm sure that you wouldn't have any trouble demonstrating that they were true by reference to facts.  I'm sure that you could provide evidence.

So there it is. It's based on what you value; living over dying, health and harmony over pain and suffering, the idea of live and let live rather than paranoia and mistrust, security over fear, fulfillment over apathy, intellect over idiocy, rationality and reason over superstition and delusion. 

These, too, seem to be objective statements about the nature of man, the nature of morality.

Don't you think it might be possible to construct an objective moral proposition out of these facts?  Couldn't an objective moral proposition help to explain, fundamentally, why we prefer one side over the other...in each of those pairings?

So, out of 7 billion people, if they were all perfectly mentally healthy, you expect any of them to be perfectly fine with being lowered into a pit of starving rats headfirst? For fuck's sake. If we're using well-being as a metric, then there are objective ways to say what's good for health and what's bad for health. ACTIONS themselves are not objectively good or bad for this. If I had to stick a knife in your throat to give you an emergency tracheotomy and save your life, that's an exception to the general rule that stabbing someone in the neck that would otherwise always be bad for your health. That's why well-being is such a good metric, the facts about what's good or bad are simple, while the actions that lead to one or the other can be situational, meaning they're not rigidly adhered to like religious doctrine which only changes at the tip of a sword. Nor are they based on irrationality, like thinking that homosexuality will cause earthquakes and therefore it must be bad because it is harmful.

And when you remove religion from the equation, most of those dichotomies I pointed out stop really mattering to people because they'll stop valuing the parts that they currently do under the delusion they're suffering from. Which is objectively BAD for their health, at least mentally. The placebo effect of thinking you have no worries because this life is a pit-stop can help but the deleterious side effects that go along with that don't exactly balance out. The reason we should (if using well-being as a metric) prefer the former in each of those examples is because those will lead to well-being while the latter in each can empirically be shown NOT to, random flukes notwithstanding (but this would be akin to blowing one's entire salary on the lottery on the off-chance they'll win, it's statistically insignificant).