Was Hitler objectively bad?

[Edwardo Piet]

That is completely off base, the Definition of a concept has nothing to say on whether or not the concept is to be adopted, it only means that morality, as defined in desirism, is a factually true relational measurement. Morality as defined in Subjectivism is also a factually true representational measurement.

That's what I was saying. Desirism is not objective because it can't objectively prescribe itself.

That is all I meant, none of that can be used as an argument for Desirism or Subjectivism or anything else, they're just trivially true.

And that's what I see as the problem. They are trivial truths that can't be externally objective. Which is ultimately subjective in the bigger meta-ethical picture.

Whether or not the models based on these definitions are coherent, represent what we mean when we use moral language and match our intuitions is another matter entirely.

You can prove that it is is more coherent than other moral philosophies but not that it is actually moral.

Desirism is not a subjective moral theory any more than the relational measurement between the sun and the earth is subjective, which it isn't.

Yes and in both cases all that is being evidenced is descriptive and not prescriptive. You can show the coherence of desirism but you can't show that it's moral just as how the relationship between the sun and the earth can be shown but it of course can't be shown that they "should" be that way.

1. Unlike the basis for other objective moral theories, Desires actually exist. Intrinsic values, Gods, impartial observers and social contracts don't.

And yet they can't be objectively shown to be moral. Showing what we value is not the same as saying what we should value.

2. Objective morality is more representational of our use of moral language than Subjectivism. When you say "rape is wrong" you don't intend to say "in my opinion rape is wrong".

And yet it is of course opinion in the sense that we either believe it is wrong or we don't. To say we knew it to be wrong would be false.

Again i'm in agreement. Though I will point out that Ought = Should.

Of course.

I guess we agree but I see the meta ethical matter as more of a problem than you do. People can just disagree with desirism and it can't refute them.