Taking a Closer Look at Moral Philosophies of Nihilism, Absolutism, and Relativism

Philosophy: Moral Absolutism

Moral Absolutes are objective and do not depend on the personal opinion or perspective when discussing right or wrong because moral absolutes demand that right and wrong is marmoreal- unquestionable and written in stone.[1] This begs the question that if right and wrong are objective, does that mean it can change. The answer is unequivocally no. This also means that, for moral absolutism to work, every inquisition of right and wrong must have an unchanging, consequential, or inconsequential resolve. Typically, the most religious of groups are moral absolutists, regarding right or wrong as divine commands characterized as perfect and undeniable. Generally, and absolutist would agree that our moral laws are inherent and are in accordance to our human nature. Someone who believed that violence is absolutely wrong, might also never use violence even for self-defense.

Philosophy: Moral Nihilism

Moral Nihilism is subjective and claims that morals are ambiguous in the sense that no universal definition of right and wrong are coherently innate. Morals are decided by those in primal authority that range from a variety of sources.[2] For instance, like how parents decide the rules and therefore, morals in a household, governments institute laws among their correlating societies and thereby establishing what is moral. Nature can also be considered as a form of primal authority, however, in some instances this might make the answer to some moral inquisitions incoherent. An absolutist might argue that incest is completely wrong and a nihilist guarantee that is right even though the philosophy regarding both can be contradictory and thereby inconsequential.

In some countries, forms of incest are accepted, following a few stipulations of course (like a person can have sexual relations with only a second cousin and onward and not violate social mores). In this instance, biologically speaking, incest can result in genetic flaw. In this example, an absolutist would argue that our morals are innate and naturally violate human morals whereas a nihilist would agree, but claim that it is only wrong because the highest empirical form of primal authority dictates malevolent consequences and thereby making incest morally wrong.

Philosophy: Moral Relativism

The idea of Moral Relativism is based on the line of thinking that there is no ultimate standard of good and evil. Also, relativists suggest that no position of moral standards can be considered with an absolute certainty of moral conclusion but instead reside in gray areas dependent on circumstance and what stipulations influence a moral resolve.[3] For instance, morals are dependent on cultural, religious, and/or traditional practices.

Many claims moral relativism as a “self-defeating” principle and that it would enforce unstable behavior and ambiguity rather than order. During the Nuremberg trials when Nazi defendants were collected to be judged, they begged for their acquittal, while claiming they had simply followed the laws instituted among them, an irate judged inquired “But is there no law higher than our law?” A moral relativist would be reconciled to disavow the claim or thereby contradict their relativist premises.