Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral.  Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)

Yes you would...in fact...I'd suggest that you would be incapable of -not- doing so.  

 

As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not.  Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.

Far be it from me to rebel against what the great moral theorist CL Lewis had to say on the matter.....I agree.  A person who attempts to trip you and fails is oin the wrong.  Why?  Because he attempted to harm you.  Someone who does so on accident is not...why, because he did -not- attempt to harm you.  Why would my principle of harm reverse this...and don't you find it telling that you have just failed to escape harm in attempting to criticize the objective moral foundation of harm?  

No, you are incorrect;  I do not equate harm with immoral. Also as you agreed with the example from C.S. Lewis; it was the act in which no damage was done, that was immoral, and not the one in which harm was committed.   So as we seem to agree, the wrong in this example is in the intent, not the objective damage done.  Now one could say that it is in the intent to harm (in which I think you lose your position for objectiveness in your view).  Could I can steal from a rich man, because I don't intend him harm, I just wish for my greater well being (would this be moral)?  And as I said, I it's not about how we know what is moral, but the nature of morality itself.  Why is it right or wrong?

 Does this harm extend to all living things?

I don;t know, it -at least- extends to humans, so?  I'm willing to entertain the notion - got a specific living thing in mind?

 What about non-living things?

Most likely not, at least in and of themselves.  Kicking a rock isn't immoral.  Kicking in my window, is.  

 If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?

Depends, does it cause harm?  Are you destroying the cure for cancer, or yourself...perhaps something your family depends on?

Just got pissed off, and harmed my phone from a sudden impact with the wall.

And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology).  However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things.  So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here),  I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.

Jesus, there you go again.  What argument do you think is being made?  What argument am I supposed to not understand?  The argument you aren't making, or the argument that I'm not making?  The phantom argument?  How could my answer to that question, -why anything is wrong- be more explicit than "because it causes harm"....?  Are you...somehow, under the impression that a full moral assessment of some x can both begin -and- end with an invocation of the axiom?  

If you are talking about how we know what is right or wrong, or if X is immoral, then you are on the wrong track. It is about if there is a morality, independent of the subject, in which we can compare right/wrong.  It's not about what is, but what ought. 

As we seen, you made statements which don't agree with "because it causes harm" as being immoral.  It sounds good, but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection (even if it is explicit).  

Again, it's not about assessment of if X is moral or not.   It is about morality itself, by which you are making the comparison and can even equate it with moral or immoral.