"You'll probably tell me that I, as a moral relativist, can't condemn Hitler."

The fun continues as a pair of philosophical naturalists (not to preclude narrower identification as physicalists or something) have stopped by to address that problem of morality from their world view perspective.

The line I put in the title was the money line from visitor "stillnotking," who also goes as SN King when I want to use fewer characters. Plus I can thereafter refer to him (?) as "King" without sowing confusion.

But enough chit-chat. Let's review King's most recent comment. The first portion of his comment had him cheerfully admitting moral relativism (it's conceivable he is unaware I had been making the point that the atheist's moral position makes arguments against a god based on moral indignation seem ill-founded when given the presupposition of causal determinism).

Now, moral standards are relative but not arbitrary. Over the course of millennia we (and by "we" I mean both our genes and our accumulated culture) have figured out that some moral standards work better than others at ensuring stability and prosperity for as many people as possible. The ethics of peace, tolerance, respect for individual rights, etc. are no less effective for lacking metaphysical backing.

The above position statement apparently takes for granted that "stability and prosperity for as many people as possible" serves as a moral axiom. But if King is correct that morality is relative, then that moral directive is no less relative than any other.

Then he brings up the odd notion of the effectiveness of ethics. Given the presupposition of moral relativism, what does that even mean, other than using ethics as a means to whatever ends you find attractive, be it death to the infidel or rain gauges for everyone? Someone explain to King that incoherence is not a positive aspect of a worldview description.

On to the punch line:

Next you'll probably tell me that I, as a moral relativist, can't condemn Hitler. Of course I can condemn him. I can do my individual best to ensure that I continue living in a society that condemns him. But imagining that I have some metaphysical mandate to condemn him does not help my case, and is ultimately foolish, like imagining that I should eat carrots because I need more "carrot spirits" rather than because vitamin A is good for me.

It's not that King can't condemn Hitler, it's that he can't do it consistent with his own moral relativism. Knowing that his morality is no better than Hitler's he condemns Hitler anyway.

What principle guides the morality of a King? Personal taste.

Oh, and what about that claim that his ethics are not arbitrary?
I believe that this is the definition in play (King can correct me if I'm wrong):

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

The claim is akin to stating that a throw of the dice is not arbitrary. After all, given the starting position of the dice, the rotation, the velocity, etcetera ...

I'll go collect the rent tomorrow. But only if I roll double sixes. Nothing arbitrary about that, is there? And if it doesn't rain then the rent is double.

*****