This refers to chapter IX of Russells book "Religion and Science"
Russell points out in this chapter that Ethics is based on values and that these values are purely individual psychological desires and there is nothing to do about proving what is better.  There is no "Good", no "Beautiness" no "Pleasure" that is absolute or common
.
I do not agree completely with this position:
 there is human nature and there is civilization, both have produced desires and values in human beings. They are often in contrast which each other.  But out of this some common values emerged, or better, some common 'value differences' emerged, which now exist also independently from desires and wishes of single persons.  Freedom and Order,  Individuum and Society, Family - Nation -Mankind, Freedom - Equality.   We find  value-spaces that are existing independently from individual psychology and which influences individual psychology.

   On the other hand I agree with Russell that the origin of these values are the humans themselves.  It does not creat any extra explanatory power to state thate if we speak about good, there must be the "concept of good".  It is completely suspicious if someone wants to have revealed values and ethics  from another point than human genes and history