Was Hitler objectively bad?

[Edwardo Piet]

Certain definitions of morality are quite simply true, Desirism's definition of morality is a relational property, and relational properties do in fact exist, so in that instance morality is real and objective.

You can't use Desire Utilitarianism ("desirism") to support itself since that would be a circular argument. And so since it can't support itself it's just as subjective and personal as any other moral view. It makes sense to you is all you can ultimately say.

Oh, it also makes sense within its own framework, sure. Don't get me wrong. But... so what? It's ultimately just descriptive ethics: It can only be prescriptive within its own framework, outside of its own framework it can't be argued to be any more "moral" than any other moral philosophy.

The problem is that the question "Why should we care about morality at all?" can't be answered. Sure, if what is moral is defined as desires "that tend to fulfil other desires" then it seems as though can be made sense of for everyone since that is all that can be desired. We can only value our own values otherwise they wouldn't be our values. Of course. But that's just plain obvious and nothing profound. Desirism is merely stating the obviousness that we can only really value what we value. The real point is that there's still nothing to say we should value anything at all. Only the mere obvious fact that we do value things.

"Ought" implies "can" but "no other option" doesn't imply "should".

EvF