Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?

No, but if it isn't then relativists or deists are right.

Some people think so.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

pomono- wouldn't that be relativists, deists or nihilists? Or would you favour the view that there is no substantive difference between ethical relativism and ethical nihilism?

Actually, what I should have written is that IF there is no natural ethics then, on the one hand, either theists/deists or historicists are right or, on the other hand, either relativists or nihilists are right. That is, if there is no natural law/freedom we must base social life absolutely on 'the beyond' or on history, but if it is thought that there is no 'absolute' at all (whether transcendent or historical) then we are left with either relativism or nihilism. I am of the opinion that this relativism or nihilism must be avoided at any cost. I do not, btw, equate relativism and nihilism but I think that Any relativism devolves into nihilism over time. So, to put it bluntly, if there is no natural ethics (OR it can Never effectively Rule human history) then we are, in the long run, left with either myth or nihilism.

pomonomo-

I'll point out that we're not debating religion here. Gratuitously dismissing religious belief as myth isn't conducive to a lively or civil debate on the topics before us.

Otherwise, I agree (though I plead complete ignorance of historicist notions of ethics).