Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

OFC I wouldn't...but I don't understand how you got that from anything I said?

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.

Is smoking objectively good or bad for my health?  Is smoking objectively good or bad, morally...for risking harm to my children in the form of illness or disease or death of a parent, for example?

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.

It's not an exception to the general rule of trying to avoid doing harm to others..and, when possible, to help them.  In fact, it;s difficult to describe -why- giving me an emergency trach is good and stabbing me in the throat is bad -without- reference to these very objective metrics.  

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.

I'd hesitate to say that the facts about what is good or bad are simple, especially in some actual dillemma (which giving someone a tracheotomy is not - that one is pretty simple).  Let;s lay that aside though.  It's interesting that you mention religious beliefs like that..because..if you'll notice...even though they're objectively wrong..it;s still an attempt to make some moral proposition based on harm.  The harm a gayquake might cause..or, more commonly, the harm a gaygasm does to one's soul, in their belief system.

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).

You're talking alot about religion, religious morality, or moral absolutism....but my objective moral propositions have nothing to do with those things?