Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

I'm just going by what you say.   If you say that harm equates with immoral, then contradict that, and then still try to tell me, that harm equates with immoral; I'm going to ask questions and disagree.  Now I normally strive to not insert assumptions into your position.  So perhaps it's my fault, for not gong beyond what you say.  And sometimes I ask questions for clarity.  Sometimes I expect you to agree, and I'm seeking to find a common ground from which to work from.  When you say you disagree, or start calling me names (the argument of a 12 yr old), then is it incorrect to respond to that.  If you mean something else, then say so.  If we agree, then acknowledge that and we'll move on.    If you mostly agree, but want to add something... then do so.  It's not that difficult.

Now in saying that "harm is the axiom of morality"  I don't think that is the correct term, but perhaps I get the gist of what you are saying (or you can clarify what you mean). I would agree, that harm, damage, or sometimes just the intention to inflict such  is often seen in what is called immoral.  However, I think that you also at times need to stretch things to make this work.  And the objectiveness, that you appealed to earlier, isn't seen when harm is intended, but not successful (not actualized).  Something you agree is still immoral.  And while harm may often be seen in what is immoral, and think you will run into more difficulty with this "axiom" when you start looking at the opposite, and moral virtues.  Things such as courage, fortitude, temperance.

So, while I may agree somewhat, I think it is far too simplistic to be complete.

Or what your own brain has arrived upon about these questions? right or wrong. Simple but evident.

Dear rod he's still not getting it jack you and kam have patients of a Buddha's .