Oh I see. The neocons' view of ethics is right for them, therefore why are we arguing against them?
No, I said it
doesn't entail relativism (what you're describing would be relativism).
Relativism is the idea that, since ethics are subjective, one should equally tolerate all ethical views.
This is a big non sequitur.
To illustrate why, by way of analogy: Taste in food is subjective. Does it therefore follow that one should like all foods equally? No, of course not; non sequitur.
There is nothing inconsistent in recognizing that my preference for pork over chicken is subjective, while continuing to prefer pork over chicken, and acting accordingly.
Likewise, there is nothing inconsistent in recognizing that my libertarian ethics are subjective, while continuing to hold to them exclusively, and acting accordingly.
The big fallacy in popular thinking on ethics is that we must choose between relativism and belief in objective ethics. Generally, religious people argue for the latter (and are mistaken), and secular people argue for the former (and are mistaken).
N.B. In addition to not following logically from the fact that ethics are subjective, relativism is self-contradictory. It is itself an ethical view. Yet it commands tolerance of all ethical views. So, for instance, it would have to tolerate its own negation ("one should not tolerate anyone else's ethical view"). Another way of saying this is that the modern leftist idea of "tolerance" (the same thing as relativism) is actually intolerant of intolerance, and thus self-contradictory.
N.B. #2 I'd argue that the false dichotomy presented us between relativism and objective ethics (which are really just the left's ethics posing dishonestly as some kind of impartiality) is just a leftist strategy, exploiting the collapse of traditional religious belief to promote their own ethics (as if there were no other alternative to religious ethics).
