I was referring to "Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral?". Imho it doesn't matter if you deem that society as moral or immoral because it's a relative thing. What matters is how moral the behavior is in the moral framework of this particular society. And ethicists are straying for that and picking and choosing their own imported moral frameworks that let them justify any locally immoral deeds.

> Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"?

Why make up the crime? I'd rather accuse them of corrupting academic integrity by faking research, like the recent examples have proven. I'd punish them accordingly and adjust expectations about their future behavior. As it is currently done.

> This sounds like anything-goes relativism.

Details of morality are obviously relative. They develop along with societies that use them. They differ.

> I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law...

I'll do it for you then. If nazis have won, you'd have a bit different moral framework than you do and you'd be as sure about its universal correctness as you are now about yours.

Did you notice how when you read history, every time there was a conflict the good guys eventually won? Is that an amazing coincidence? Or do the winners decide who's good?

> Is it wrong for moral views to change?

It's perfectly normal and necessary, but we don't talk about that. Just that ethicist, due to their education are a bit too crafty about justifying stuff that current morality labels as bad.