Subhan’s explanation is coherent and believable, but he has to bite a pretty big bullet. I happen to like helping people, Hitler happens to like hurting people, and we can both condemn each other if we want but both of our likes are equally valid.
I think most people who think about morality have long realized Subhan’s position is a very plausible one, but don’t want to bite that bullet. Subhan’s arguments confirm that the position is plausible, but they don’t make the consequences any more tolerable. I realize that appeal to consequences is a fallacy and that reality doesn’t necessarily have to be tolerable, but I don’t feel anywhere near like the question has been “dissolved”
I second Vladimir’s “Prince of Nothing” recommendation. It’s a great read just as pure fantasy fiction, but it also helped me to understand some of the concepts on this blog. Reading the “chimpanzee—village idiot—Einstein” line of posts, I found myself interpreting them by sticking Anasurimbor Kelhus at the right end of the spectrum and going from there.