As I mused on this question I returned to another. If Pat was in fact satirizing me, they why would he call me an ethical subjectivist? After all, as I noted in my article:
Obviously Pat knows I am a hard-nosed ethical objectivist if ever there was one. Consider, for instance, my rather uncompromising critique of traditional notions of biblical genocide based on our intuitions of absolute moral axioms.
i) For the record, I think I’m the one, not Patrick Chan, who was first to slap the “ethical subjectivst” label onto Rauser. So if you want to blame someone, blame me.
ii) How funny that he claims to be a “hardnosed ethical objectivist,” then defends that self-classification by appealing to his moral “intuitions.” And he does so to repudiate objective Biblical norms.
Oh, sure, he can talk about “absolute moral axioms,” but that’s grounded in his subjective intuitions. So it’s no more “absolute” than how he personally feels about anything. That’s about as solid as bubblegum on hot pavement.
iii) And it’s not as if his “absolute moral axioms” are self-evident or universally shared. Indeed, it’s striking how so many of his axiomatic moral intuitions just happen to coincide with the politically correct orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. The sort of folks who sit on Human Rights Commissions or Human Rights Tribunals, persecuting evildoers like Mark Steyn.