Yes that is true and that is part of it. Not harming humans should be part of an objective moral as it is about valuing human "Life". But thats not all that supports objective morality. Its also our intuition of it and how we live like morals are objective. Its how we can reason out moral truths (better/best ways to behave morally) to find and test that truth.
If intuition plays any part of it, it's not objective.
Under subjective morality using harm as the measure of why something is wrong doesnt work because then we can say the meaning of harm is also subjective. What one person calls harm another calls non harmful. There needs to be an anchor outside humans to make any protest against moral wrong really wrong in the world.
Yes, the meaning of harm IS subjective. Something that would harm one person could be something that another person can get over very quickly.
So we could say that under a subjective moral system murder, rape, theft, etc, is not really wrong in any factual or truth way beyond humans and therefore there really is no right and wrong morally.
When I was younger, I went to a pet shop and I saw in one of the cages where they have birds one bird that would constantly be mating with one of the other birds. He'd fly down and BAM! And then flutter around, and BAM again. Constantly, every twenty seconds or so. The poor female bird had half the feathers in her back pulled out from this. Do you think that any of the other birds in that cage cared? I don't. They certainly didn't do anything about it. So while that kind of action might be considered wrong by most humans, it doesn't seem to go beyond Humanity - which fits in exactly with what you said would be the case of morality was subjective.
The problem is it doesn't matter what environment it happens in be it atheist, religious and also what religion, culture. All young children even at 6 months which is very little time to be influenced by parents or adults have this knowledge like their are wired that way aboy right and wrong.
This study was talking of ages about 20 months, not six. It was also done AFTER the one that looked at six-month-olds, and it said no study had looked at children that young, thus suggesting that the study looking at six month olds had been invalidated.
its more rudiment than that. They can setup age appropriate tests based on child development stage models to see how babies respond/react. The beauty of this is that such a young child has hardly had any time to be encultured so is really showing innate behaviour.
Even if it did show innate behaviour, it was not conclusively shown that it was innate morality.
Sorry it wasnt the last time I looked. The other one should be OK in fact from memory I think its about the same article but a commentary of it by Daily Mail. But the one by Bloom should give you all the info. He is the leading researcher in this field.
The one from the daily mail was about 19 month olds.
OK so in measuring something to see that its zero we have established its zero light. That is similar to morality. It can either be right or wrong (light or dark) but it can also be measurements of varying levels of light and dark like there can be degree of killing.
Glad to see you are finally agreeing with me. It IS like measuring light. Now, telling me, if we can measure morality, what units do we measure it in?
Yes but thats intuitively. When we see a women being assaulted in the street we intuitive know something is wrong. We may not know the circumstances from a distance but we know something is wrong. Then we can get to know what the circumstances are and determine the moral truth.
First of all, everything you just said here is totally irrelevant to the point.
You said you had never said that killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances. I pointed out where you did exactly that.
Your example about the woman being assaulted on the street was nothing but a deflection from the actual issue AND it is perfectly explainable by empathy, which I have described many times in this thread already.