Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... lets try this in the form of a logical syllogism.

Premise 1:  That which is harmful is immoral
Premise 2:  Jack accidentally tripped Jill causing her harm.

Conclusion:  Jack behaved immorally.

Not your fault, you're bad at this.  Your proposition does not satisfy necessity even when it satisfies sufficiency,  and so cannot comment in the absolute.  I've only told you that all things which are bad are so because they are harmful...not that all harm is bad.  You can certainly find some example of "harm" that has no moral component.  So can I.  And?  

Is this valid?  You already said that is wasn't once when you agreed with the C.S. Lewis reference.  Now granted that you can change your mind, I don't think that you will.  How would you invalidate this syllogism?

I;m honestly offended that you doubted my ability in this regard.  You might think all sorts of wierd shit about me.....but who doubts my ability to game?

Are we having a discussion regarding moral harm, moral agency, and moral desert, or just fucking around with words?  You tell me.  I can roll either way....but I'm -objectively- better at fucking around with words than you are....so....

-pick your fights?

So you agree then, that the first premise is false?   This would correspond to my previous comment that immoral does not equate with "because it causes harm".

Let try another this time with your idea that "things which are bad are so because they are harmful.

Premise 1:  What is Immoral causes harm
Premise 2:  Bob tried to trip Bill, was unsucessful and Bill was unharmed.

Conclusion:  Bob did not act immorally.

Do you agree with this syllogism?   If not, how would you invalidate it?