Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Says who? Says society. On this particular issue there's widespread agreement that it's a harm. I don't think you can escape that if most people don't regard something as a harm they are not going to regard it as immoral.

This is the value of an objective framework, the subjective invocation of someone or some society's opinion is irrelevant.  

Which was exactly the point I made. Rape isn't wrong because I say so, or you say so, or an imagined god says so. It's wrong if it's harmful and that moral judgment has societal force if enough of society supports the notion.

Then it's objectively wrong, even when societal support -isn't- there.  It wouldn't be the first time a society collectively did something horribly wrong, nor would it be the last.  

I guess what it comes down to (and what we agree on) is that which is harmful is immoral, but harm is somewhat subjective in many cases. Not so much in the case of rape, which is why everyone "sees" a "moral fact of the matter" (though participants in rape culture often do not; e.g, "no" doesn't really mean "no" by their lights). But generically, the case for harm may depend on context or be quite weak, in which case, the will of society to oppose or sanction it becomes dicey.

You're commenting on the difficulty of arriving at a moral fact of the matter, that doesn't make harm subjective, it makes it difficult to objectively assess in the face of competing moral facts of a matter or when we...for whatever reason, do not have access or knowledge of them.  It's true that the will to enforce moral prohibitions or compulsion can falter - but this doesn't make any morality any less objective either - it's simply an acknowledgement of the moral weakness of said society.  

Beyond that, morality can and does change. There was a time for example when ice cream parlors were considered dens of iniquity and conducive to "white slavery", now they are places for innocent children to have fun. These are all based on judgments about harms, which ultimately are opinions and not always accurate. But it's good that morals change, based on new information. Not as objectively necessarily as scientific understanding changes, but the same general principle applies. This is another reason I don't see morality as objective.

Is it just your opinion, ultimately, that rape causes harm? Is it an inaccurate opinion? You've given many reasons why you see morality as subjective...but none of them have had anything to do with morality being subjective. It can be difficult, we don't always get it right, there are more ways to fail than to succeed, and over time we've recognized past moral failures, sure.....but?

---

If it's based on someone's ignorance of whether something is harmful, that's not morality, that's stupidity. They're objectively wrong, ergo their moral assessment is irrelevant.

A standard description of diminished moral agency.  A person with diminished moral agency would be -expected- to get something wrong, and wrong along the very lines that caused the issue.  It's why christers get shit wrong when that shit is included in the articles of their faith. It's why they fail to recognize the immorality of their good god, and the moral abhorrence of vicarious redemption. Ultimately, it's the reason that they are incapable of justifying an objective morality or..in the case of a couple of these fine individuals, even understanding what that is or would look like, while simultaneously arguing -against- an objective morality that does not have a god clause. Their moral assessments, thusly, are irrelevant....which is kindof sad..because you can tell just by listening to them that morality is super duper important for them.

Religion poisons everything.