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.


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?

It is not immoral because Jack did not intend harm, however Jack can still feel awful because intentionally or not he caused harm.

At that point the harm is the issue rather than the intent.

I can feel sorry for my wife when she stubbs her toe, I had no part in the stubbing but I have empathy.

Keep in mind, that I was just examining the reasons given by the other poster. In doing so, I'm not making any assumptions, beyond what they had said (because it causes harm, and that you can equate harm and immorality).

I agree, that most people are going to come to a similar conclusion as you did. And thus come to the outcome that the syllogism is wrong. While harm may normally be involved in what we call immoral, harm alone, isn't a sufficient basis. Intent also comes into play. I would say that the intent is more important in the matter than the harm (actualized or not). Would you agree?

What of a man who is cheating on his wife and ensures that she never finds out. There is no harm done (physical or emotional). There is not an intent to harm, which is why he keeps it from her. But there is betrayal and disloyalty. Is this immoral?