Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

Theocracies -do- base their moral systems on harm.  Can you suggest a harmless sin..not a sin that -you- would see as harmless, but one that -they- would?  The whole point of following a gods rules is to avoid harm to oneself, to whomever the harmful thing is supposed to hurt, to society, or even to god.

You think that they;re wrong about what causes harm, or to whom..and so do I, I would say objectively wrong..... but it's very clear that harm is fundamental to their theocratic morality.

Why do you think it is the basis? Even if harm is a common result, it doesn't mean it is the basis for it. As we have seen, "because it causes harm" doesn't always mean immoral.

---

So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out?  You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work.  It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis.  And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff.  I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.

You're now asking me why infidelity and deception are immoral, but you already know my answer.  Something doesn't suddenly become harmful the moment you're caught, you know......and getting away with some harmful thing doesn't change the harm that was done.  We all have ways of excusing ourselves for harm, you wouldn't be the first guy to imagine that this one had traction.

Why don't you go ask your significant other those questions?  I'm sure it'll clear you right up.  It doesn't.
[/quote]

No, I am asking you to show me where the harm is, that you say is the basis for it's immorality. And again, I'm not trying to justify it morally.... you are misunderstanding my intentions. Perhaps, you could say this type of wrong is harmful to yourself. I could even agree, that in some way, all immorality harms ourselves. However, I could just bring up again, things that are harmful, that are amoral. I think that you need to think through this some more, and explain, how you are making this relationship to make it a basis for, and not a result of.

---

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?

Yes, and he is keeping his wife from harm.   I'm not arguing that this is moral or not (though I do think it is wrong).  Just examining the claim that harm is the basis for morality.
In the area of epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong and is what we are talking about) I don't think it does make that big of a difference.  A Christian may point to the scriptures for insight, but I don't see that as a large inequality.  Many who don't believe will come to the same conclusion.

How is he keeping her from harm? by hiding the truth that he is increasing the risk of her catching a disease? or by the risk of her finding out somehow and the devastation that could bring to her life?
Or are you suggesting that by hiding the affair he is keeping her from harm when what he would seem to be doing to me is hiding his wrong doing and shielding himself from the consequences he would face.
What you imply is a  bit like saying the cover up of fraud was to keep the company from harm.

So is increasing the potential for harm is immoral (by itself)?  Like, getting into my vehicle and cruising down the highway (aren't I increasing the potential for harm here)? 

I could see where he could be hiding it, for selfish reasons (avoiding the consequences).  But it seems equally valid, that he could be hiding it, not to cause unnecessary harm to his wife (as stated).   I don't think this makes it less immoral.  Adding deceit makes it more so.

Are you saying, that doing the moral thing, can sometimes increase harm?   I would agree .  Take your example of fraud in a company.  Now simply using harm as a basis, one might justify their lying about it in court, on the basis of not doing so, would cause more harm to the company, and it's workers.  I would disagree with this reasoning;  would you?