Final answer:
The Hitler Argument Against Simple Subjectivism discusses the philosophical debate regarding objective versus subjective morality, challenging the separation of facts and values and exploring the implications in the context of ideologies like Nazism and evaluations of genocide.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Hitler Argument Against Simple Subjectivism raises questions about the nature of morality and the distinction between facts and values. Moral realists and moral skeptics debate the existence of objective moral truths versus the interpretation of morality as a subjective construct. Highlighting this discussion, figures like Hilary Putnam challenge the fact-value distinction by arguing that scientific practice involves evaluative processes, thus calling into question the objectivity of scientific facts. This debate extends into how ideologies like Nazism are judged, considering as well the implications of extreme rationality discussed by artists such as Beuys in the context of the Holocaust.
Additionally, the arguments around subjective and objective values feed into broader moral arguments, including those for the existence of God or the evaluation of genocide. The holistic assessment of these topics draws from a range of philosophical outlooks, including those of Hume, Arendt, and others questioning the separation of is from ought.