Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

I get it, you're angry.  

If you'd like to start over from the very beginning on what makes a secular objective morality objective, we can do so.  

What are we talking about, when we talk about morality.  You and I refer to harm.  The religious, in a hilariously twisted way, refer to harm.  Our empathy...refers to harm.  In fact, you can't go anywhere in the moral landscape and not hear about harm, harm, harm.  Now.  I didn't make it that way.  I didn't choose for my empathy to respond to harm.  I didn't choose for those religious people, or their religious beliefs, to refer to harm.  It's not just my opinion that you and I refer to harm, that the religious refer to harm, that our empathy responds to harm.  The subject of morality, across people with moral disagreements and disparate moral foundations appears to be referant to harm.  Our biology, itself, appears to be referent to harm. 

The subject of morality, or at least one of them, is harm.  Harm is what we are talking about when we try to decide if something is bad. 

Would this, in -your- opinion, qualify as an objective fact?

If we disregard god-dick-worship, yes. But that requires accepting that caveat (and I hate lying or being a hypocrite about things so that has to be asterisked somewhere). Harm and well-being are the only reasonable metrics for judging actions and I would agree that something like moral relativism is bunk (for both subjective and objective reasons) and that basing a moral system on anything that exceeds the empirical realm (well-being in the afterlife being a concern, for instance) is also invalid because while you can objectively define this or that (homophobia, etc.), it's based on spurious, non-empirical concepts. Something about the language that I have to use here, however, still manages to make me feel uncomfortable about using 'objective' as the term here. Having to insert words like 'reasonable' and 'judging' into the mix like I just did there, just reek of the opposite of what you imagine when you think of objective since you tend to associate it with ignoring what people's opinions are about it. Like, I get why it's necessary to word it that way, there's just no way around it, I just think it can be done without using the word 'objective' for anything other than the 'what causes harm or well-being' part to minimize that off-putting effect.

If you limit this to human beings only, that helps maintain a better balance with objective facts to support what actions promote well-being and minimize harm. Extending this to other creatures dips heavily into subjective territory even more so, so we'll leave that. Things like determining how severe a punishment should be (or whether or not it's even a good way of going about things) among other things are largely subjective as well even if supported by objective facts. So subjectivity plays an immense role in the process as well. Is there no way to either balance out what we call secular objective morality without making it sound loaded? I don't even think the primary name being objective is the right approach anyway because no one's going to go into it understanding intrinsically what you meant by it without having to hear your explanation of it. Secular morality alone should be sufficient, and would logically imply both objective and subjective criteria for determining the contents thereof. Naming it something that seems needlessly exclusionary is just another one of those things that feels wrong and makes me uncomfortable just accepting it as is. But it's just a name and I can call it whatever the hell I like as long as the principles remain the same.