Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

1. )  I don't think it is quite so transparent (as a basis that is).  In doing some research, it appears the idea wasn't expressed until the middle 18th century, and didn't really become popular until the later 20th century.  While others have classified this as a mostly American ideology.  And your examples don't really show anything, other than some connection.   I think that connection is that harm tends to follow immoral behavior.  You don't answer the questions about it being the basis, but claim it is axiomatic.  But you also don't address the reasons, for why harm alone isn't the basis, and seem to agree with most of my examples.  I think this is because you are smuggling in moral principles, to add to your axiom of harm (which, kinda defeats it).

It's as transparent as your objections which each, themselves, referred back to harm.  Now you think that you can object by complaining that it wasn't written on a cave wall somewhere?  "Some connection" is all that needed to be shown, since my use of harm as axiomatic is based precisely on the fact that morality and harm are inescapably connected.  Harm is the foundation of all moral systems, that's what makes it axiomatic, that's what makes it a properly basic belief.  No system is complete by simple reference to an axiom..that's why it's called a system.  What moral principle am I smuggling in..have I ever referred to anything other than some relationship to harm?  Have I been less than explicit in anything?

2.)  Is this sarcasm to avoid discussion?  It doesn't seem to address what I said.

Isn't this a precious freudian slip?  I deliver sarcasm because your comments have been -ridiculous-...they deserve them.  

3.) No dishonesty on my part (and I think it shows the weakness of your position to resort to such tactics).   But what if his intention is to avoid emotional harm to his wife (as was stated).  You seem to be avoiding this!

If he wished to avoid emotional harm to his wife he shouldn't have cheated on her.  After having cheated on her, if faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral decisions, he chooses the most harmful but personally convenient of the field..he is compounding past immorality with present and continued immorality.  At what point do two wrongs make a right?  

4.) I would suggest you focus on your own arguments.  And yes, all sin grieves God (which I suppose would be harm).  But you do not (at least from your current worldview) have the luxury of appealing to that. 

OFC I do, since I'm simply explaining to you that your own moral system is also based on harm.  It doesn't matter that what you believe is a ridiculous ghost story, that ridiculous ghost story is the backdrop for a moral system based upon harm.  I don't have to believe in ghost stories for that to be demonstrably true, and your ghost stories being objectively immoral doesn;t change the fact that the attempt was maid.  As I said -waaaaay- way back.  Godism moved on objective, harm based morality like a bitch, but couldn't get there.  

And even showing that all immorality involves harm (which I don't necessarily agree or think is a stretch to make the claim work), doesn't go to show that it alone  is the basis.  

Showing that all moral considerations reduce to some comment on a relationship to harm is -exactly- how one demonstrates the accuracy and utility of their axiom.  You literally can't talk about morality without talking about harm.  No other thing in your moral system, or in anyone else's, has meaning aside from that referent.  

5.)  If it helps, the phone thing, was an example, that I made up.  Perhaps you can use that now, to divert the topic to me as well.  However I have known people who have reported having  done such, and meaningful and objective harm was done to the phone.  It's just not meaningful, in a moral sense.   "Because it harms" doesn't mean immoral here.  Again, you seem to be smuggling in moral principles, to make your harm axiom work. 

OFC you made it up................?  If you're not talking about harm in any sense meaningful to morality, then you aren't talking about morality, you're playing with words.  You could have stopped, or never did it..since you obviously understand that it was disingenuous...but that's just the kind of guy you are, I guess.  What's the harm, amiright?

And again, I'm just examining what you are claiming; to evaluate it.  I'm not making any other assumptions or adding anything to it based on what I know is moral, or claiming that these things are necessarily moral or not.  So far as the moral assessments go, we are not very far apart at all.  So you can stop portraying that I am.  Also axiomatic doesn't mean unquestionable.   It was once though axiomatic, that the sun revolved around the earth.  But it would be foolish if people had ignored the defeaters for this, and said "look it's obvious the sun revolves around the earth"

You're not examining any claim of mine.  You're denying what cannot be denied, attempting to change the subject, and flailing around with words and concepts you don't understand. You wouldn't know objective morality, moral agency, moral desert, moral compulsion, moral reasoning, harm, or virtue if they jumped up and bit you in the ass...and this is why you cannot competently engage with me, anyone else, or yourself.... on the subject. You are literally incapable.