Of course different cultures have different views of what is moral and what is not. We have no argument about that.
But without an objective morality, who is to say which cultural view is superior to the others, which is "correct?" You can't, not without an objective standard. THAT is why I'm saying that in a subjectively moral universe such as the one you propose, different moral views would have to be equal -- and that means the Nazi view would have been equal to the Allie view. Those cultures which practice ephebophilia, infanticide, and cannibalism would be equal to ours, ultimately. And quite honestly, this IS the view that anthropologists currently take.
I don't 'propose' a subjectively moral universe. Nor do I hold it up as being superior to an objectively moral universe. But what you're doing is evaluating my position without setting aside your belief in objective morality, and further than mere belief in objective morality a belief that you have identified and understood it.
I get that this is where you see the world. I am merely alerting you to the fact that no one in the history of the planet conflates ephebophilia, infanticide, and cannibalism as morally equal to stopping Nazis unless...
1. They are in societies where that is normalised, and there is a lack of external influences to promote change. Which doesn't apply to me. I have once lived in a country where reports of cannibals exist but...*shrugs*
2. They are talking academically. As you said, anthropologists don't seek to measure behaviour and culture against a moral compass (at least in a general sense). Each of those anthropologists (of course) apply a moral compass within their own lives daily. They are simply applying methodology to their research, since subjective measurement of subjects was so damaging to research through history (try reading first source anthropology writings from western sources 200-300 years ago and you'll see this immediately).
3. They believe in objective morality, and therefore BY DEFINITION must see subjective morality as 'lesser', else objective morality is a meaningless term.
I truly appreciate the fact that you don't approve of the Nazi values -- it makes you a decent human being. But it also makes you rationally inconsistent. I believe it means that your brain is opting for morality over logical consistency, which is a very, very good thing.
All humans are 'rationally inconsistent'. That doesn't mean Nuremberg was a 'farce'.
Nor does it make objective morality 'consistent' or 'rational'.
What religious views and morality do you subscribe to?
