IndexPhilosophy: Moral AbsolutismPhilosophy: Moral NihilismPhilosophy: Moral RelativismPhilosophy: Moral Absolutism Moral absolutes are objective and do not depend on personal opinion or perspective during the right or wrong discussion because moral absolutes require that right and wrong be marble, indisputable and set in stone.[1] This raises the question: 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, any inquiry into right and wrong must have an immutable, consequential, or irrelevant resolution. Typically, most religious groups are moral absolutists, viewing right or wrong as divine commandments characterized as perfect and undeniable. Generally, an absolutist would agree that our moral laws are inherent in and consistent with our human nature. Someone who believes that violence is absolutely wrong might never use it, not even in self-defense. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Philosophy: Moral Nihilism Moral nihilism is subjective and states that morality is ambiguous, meaning that no universal definition of right and wrong is consistently innate. Morals are decided by those in primary authority and come from a variety of sources.[2] For example, just as parents decide the rules and therefore morals in a family, governments establish laws between their related societies and thus establish what is moral. Nature can also be considered a form of primordial authority, however, in some cases this could make the response to some moral inquisitions inconsistent. An absolutist might argue that incest is completely wrong and that a nihilistic guarantee is right, even though the philosophy regarding both may be contradictory and therefore irrelevant. In some countries forms of incest are accepted, obviously following certain clauses (for example a person can only have sexual intercourse with a second cousin and beyond and not violate social customs). In this case, biologically speaking, incest can cause a genetic defect. In this example, an absolutist would argue that our morality is innate and naturally violates human morality, while a nihilist would agree, but claim that it is wrong only because the highest empirical form of primordial authority dictates malevolent consequences and thus makes l 'incest morally wrong. : Moral Relativism The idea of ​​moral relativism is based on the line of thought that there is no definitive standard of good and evil. Furthermore, relativists suggest that no position of moral standards can be considered with absolute certainty of moral conclusion, but instead resides in gray areas dependent on circumstances and which dispositions influence a moral decision.[3] For example, morality depends on cultural, religious and/or traditional practices. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Many argue that moral relativism is a "self-defeating" matter of principle and that it would impose unstable behavior and ambiguity rather than order. During the Nuremberg trials, when the Nazi defendants were brought together to be tried, they called for their acquittal, while they claimed that they had simply followed the laws established among them, an irate judge asked, "But is there no law superior to our law?".