Table of ContentsPhilosophy: Moral AbsolutismPhilosophy: Moral NihilismPhilosophy: Moral RelativismPhilosophy: Moral Absolutism Moral absolutes are objective and not dependent on opinion or personal perspective when discussing right or wrong because moral absolutes require that right and wrong be marmoreal, indisputable and set in stone.[1] This begs the question: if good and evil are objective, does that mean it can change? The answer is clearly no. This also means that for moral absolutism to work, any inquiry into right and wrong must have an immutable, consequential or inconsequential resolution. Generally, the most religious groups are moral absolutists, viewing good or evil as divine commandments characterized as perfect and undeniable. Generally speaking, absolutists would agree that our moral laws are inherent and consistent with our human nature. Someone who believes that violence is absolutely wrong might also never resort to violence, even in self-defense. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Philosophy: Moral Nihilism Moral nihilism is subjective and claims that morality is ambiguous in the sense that no universal definition of good and evil is consistently innate. Morality is decided by those with primary authority and who come from a variety of sources.[2] For example, in the same way that parents decide the rules and therefore morality within a household, governments institute laws within their correlated societies and thus establish what is moral. Nature can also be seen as a form of primal authority, but in some cases this can make the answer to certain moral questions inconsistent. An absolutist might argue that incest is completely wrong and that a nihilistic guarantee is right, even though the philosophies regarding the two may be contradictory and therefore inconsequential. In some countries, forms of incest are accepted, of course respecting some stipulations (for example, a person can have sexual relations only with a first cousin and beyond without violating social mores). In this case, biologically speaking, incest can lead to a genetic defect. In this example, an absolutist would argue that our morality is innate and naturally violates human morality, whereas a nihilist would agree, but claim that it is only false because the highest empirical form of primary authority dictates malicious consequences, thus making incest morally wrong. : Moral Relativism The idea of ​​moral relativism is based on the line of thinking that there is no ultimate standard between right and wrong. Furthermore, relativists suggest that no position regarding moral standards can be considered with absolute certainty of moral conclusion, but rather resides in gray areas dependent on the circumstances and stipulations that influence a moral resolution.[3] For example, morality depends on cultural, religious and/or traditional practices. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Many claim that moral relativism is a “self-defeating solution.” » and that it would impose unstable behavior and ambiguity rather than order. During the Nuremberg trials, when the Nazi defendants were gathered for trial, they demanded acquittal,..