In the case of Mussolini, it turns out that the value system he adopted “valued” being imposed on others. But the quote you found suggests that he might have known this in advance—before he knew anything concrete about the value system he would adopt. That’s not something that moral anti-realism says you can know in advance.
More realistically, it’s likely that Mussolini choose his value system with knowledge of the contents, and specifically picked one that called for it to be imposed on others. But using this quality of the moral system as a litmus test for whether to pick it is not justified by moral anti-realism. Mussolini asserts the contrary, which is why I question whether he is using the label “moral relativist” appropriately.
I don’t quite think he asserts that. He merely claims that fascism is at least equal to anything else in measure of consistency with relativism. But I’m not too interested in the finer points of Mussolini interpretation. I’m mainly putting him forth in answer to your interest in non-moral-realist tyrants.
Fair enough, but whether Mussolini is accurate to label himself a moral relativist is fairly central to whether he disproves my “tyranny = moral realism” assertion.
Even if he did make the mistake of thinking relativism implies imposition, that need not invalidate his claim to be a moral relativist. Relativism remains consistent with imposition. And his comment that “all ideologies are mere fictions” certainly seems to point him in a broadly anti-realist direction.
(B) follows from (A), at least if we take (B) as elliptical for
(B’) to attempt to enforce it, if the ideology indicates that this is valuable, with all the energy of which he is capable.
And Mussolini’s ideology presumably did indicate that enforcement of Italian values is valuable.
In the case of Mussolini, it turns out that the value system he adopted “valued” being imposed on others. But the quote you found suggests that he might have known this in advance—before he knew anything concrete about the value system he would adopt. That’s not something that moral anti-realism says you can know in advance.
More realistically, it’s likely that Mussolini choose his value system with knowledge of the contents, and specifically picked one that called for it to be imposed on others. But using this quality of the moral system as a litmus test for whether to pick it is not justified by moral anti-realism. Mussolini asserts the contrary, which is why I question whether he is using the label “moral relativist” appropriately.
I don’t quite think he asserts that. He merely claims that fascism is at least equal to anything else in measure of consistency with relativism. But I’m not too interested in the finer points of Mussolini interpretation. I’m mainly putting him forth in answer to your interest in non-moral-realist tyrants.
Fair enough, but whether Mussolini is accurate to label himself a moral relativist is fairly central to whether he disproves my “tyranny = moral realism” assertion.
Even if he did make the mistake of thinking relativism implies imposition, that need not invalidate his claim to be a moral relativist. Relativism remains consistent with imposition. And his comment that “all ideologies are mere fictions” certainly seems to point him in a broadly anti-realist direction.
Well put. Hmm . . . must think more about what’s wrong with my previous thesis.