Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

I don't think Harm can stand alone as a moral theory let along be objective in its own right.

Harm -isn't- a moral theory, it's a moral axiom...a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief of objective harm as a moral axiom is a properly basic belief in objective morality.

1. I keep seeing the statement "harm is objective". That is true only in the sense that there is harm or there isn't harm--which, by iteself, is insufficient to make moral judgments. It does nothing to address categories of harm (and their relative weight in an equation), thresholds of harm, intensity of harm, competing harms, exceptions to harm -- all of which are needed to assess moral choices--all of which are subjective.

Do you think it;s impossible to objectively assess categories and relative weights of harm?  What's more harmful, attempted rape, one instance of manslaughter, two of murder, or genocide?  

Additionally, to assess harm, all kinds of moral value must be inferred and assigned to issues like relative (quantity) harm, comparing and grading different types of harm (physical, mental, slander, other intangible harms), intent, a higher value placed on humans, exceptions in war, punishment for crimes that can't possibly be repeated, etc. Over time and across cultures these underlying values are different, so any moral system based on harm changes along with it.

OFC things must be inferrred, that's called moral reasoning.  How do you plan on getting a true conclusion from moral reasoning without sound propositions?  

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

3. Morality based on Harm does little to instruct us on our moral obligations to act and if you claim it can compel us to act, on what grounds?

Do you wish to harm others or be harmed?  Can a truly immoral society survive and if it could would you live there?  We can go high or low with this one.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

4. It seems to hang your hat on harm alone is just a huge ball of situational ethics (the very definition of subjective) or is riding on top of another moral theory that has already established value to all the moving parts.

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.