Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

Man, I swear we're speaking two different languages. Let me just break this down to the simplest shortest way possible. The goal posts are not objective, they're chosen by personal preference (with rationalization, which I supposed some portions of which could be determined objectively).

You are...objectively, wrong here.  These goalposts are not chosen by personal preference.  I didn't choose for rape to be bad, or for rape to be harmful.  Similarly, I didn't choose for the subject of morality to be harm.  

That's the foundation of objective morality.  Yes, I have opinions, we all have opinions.  Some opinions more closely toe the line with facts than others.  

The means by which to move toward good goal post and away from bad goal post are, for the most part, objective. Then there come the gradients of every little situation where objectivity is sorely, SORELY limited in its ability to determine solutions, disciplinary measures, etc., all of which are largely determined subjectively. In the grand scheme of all that is under the umbrella of morality, you could say that objectivity plays a part but a very minor one. I was talking about quantity, not utility. Yes, it's essential for moving up or down the scale as far as how the goal posts are defined but every other aspect is subjective. Maybe a pie chart would help. See the small slice? That's how much objectivity is involved. See the rest of the pie? That's where subjectivity is involved.

I thnk that you attribute a great many things to subjectivity that aren't subjective.  I think that, because you still have a clear misconception of what it means for something to -be- objective.  I can only explain that misconception in so many ways.  Tell me what part of determining solutions, or disciplinary measures, doesn;t refer to at least some objective facts?  
I see criminal justice, for example...and it's got a mountain of facts they refer to.  I;m sure that some of them are probably mistaken...but?  

BTW, then let's hear your objective data for the hypothetical situation. Like, what role does intention play? And how much does it matter? Is there any way to determine either of those other than subjectively?

Well, we've seen that intent to do harm is the difference between murder and manslaughter, haven't we?  So that's one role it plays in our assessment.  We entertain the concept of an accident...and accidents carry lesser moral condemnation.   In an accident, whatever harm was caused was not meant by the person who did it.  We can only arrive at that seperation, at that classification, by reference to objective facts.  The driver did not see the girl in the road, for example.  If we find a school crosswalk schedule in the drivers car and a list of names in red lipstick with the little girl at the top...........we hit the fucker over the head with a brick.

You can't fucking say that any act is always wrong 100% of the time! What the fuck?!

That doesn't answer the question of HOW MUCH difference and from the answer, I don't think you can actually produce empirical data that supports it. I think degrees are subjective and make up the bulk of the discussion because every conceivable situation will have that large grey area to fill in. Unless it's an objective policy to give catch-all solutions to any old situation.

And if you think I still have a misconception about what is objective, define it better. I pointed out why your previous definition breaks down and you didn't have any way to undo that so you'll either have to do better or we'll just have to agree to disagree.