Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mister Agenda]

What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"

Umm...that morality is based on intended consequences, and what matters the most is what you're trying to do. If I try to grab your hand to keep you from falling and I accidentally punch you in the nose instead, I'm being clumsy, not evil (though if I know I'm so clumsy that I'm more likely to punch you in the nose than successfully grab your hand, that enters into the moral equation). If I punch you to knock you out because you can't stop panicking over the Nazis looking for you, my intent is to keep the Nazis from finding you, so my punching is regrettable but morally justified.

Do you get why people might think you're being deliberately obtuse for seeming to be mystified by this?

---

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?  

Or is this a false dichotomy?

---

He was trying to keep his wife from harm.  Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm? 
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?

For fuck's sake, if his intention is to keep his wife from harm, he shouldn't fucking cheat on her!

---

If one accepts 'cause no unnecessary harm' and the converse 'promote well-being in others and society' as axiomatic, certainly it must follow that cultivating good in oneself is desirable in order avoid causing unnecessary harm and to promote well-being in others and society. If I aspire to have qualities that will help motivate me in those areas and help keep me from making moral mistakes, I will be 'better at morality'. Cultivating one's own integrity and charity follow from the premises.