Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Can you think of some harmless immoral thing?  Care to propose a harmless sin?  

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. 

Stretch things?  A full moral assessment of any given x..like any assessment of any other thing, cannot be satisfied by simply stating the axiom out of which any positions may follow, which I've already explained.  

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.

The person in your example objectively intended harm.  In fact..when we can't determine that, we don't call it immoral...we call it careless or clumsy - like your many responses. It wasn;t so much the case that you were -trying- to murder objective morality, as you simply didn't see it there, right in front of your clown car. Ergo you simply manslaughtered it.

 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, what you'd actually like to discuss is either moral compulsion or moral virtue?  I think that you'll find more frustration in these topics than you did with an objective morality based upon harm. How about this for the moral virtue, abstaining from or preventing harm? Why is courage virtuous, courage in the face of what? Fortitude...as in courage in the face of...what...again? How about temperance...what are we attempting to moderate? While we're at it, why should you follow The Rules™? Why should others be made to follow The Rules™, even if they don't agree?

Harm, harmity harm harm harm. Good job.

You see, that's how this works, with harm as axiomatic to a moral system (objective, subjective...doesn't matter in this)...all subsequent statements consistent with that system will invariably reduce to some relationship with the moral fact of the matter. Which, for reference.......in case you're still unclear.....is harm.

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

Oh, something's far too simplistic, alright........