Moral nihilism
Discussion
Moral nihilism, moral relativism, moral absolutism - these are all metaethical schools of thought.
Personally I land between relativism and absolutism: there is always a right or wrong choice but the action’s moral evaluation is deeply embedded in the relative situation. Some actions are “always” wrong but much more often it depends on the context, so the same action may be right in one scenario and wrong in another. But it still carries moral weight.
I separate my moral views from my opinions on law, to some degree. I am certainly not a moral nihilist; I just think there are circumstances where someone should be legally free to make a “morally wrong” decision. If morality and societal law were identical, there would be insufficient freedom to choose the “right” path and thereby develop your soul/spiritual self/personal growth.
If law and morality are identical, then all moral choices are coerced and therefor not a freely-chosen good action.
I see. Gotcha.
So to each’s own? If it’s always changing, then nothing is for certain. All laws and morals are based on the cultures norms?
So I wouldn’t say that, either. Thanks for helping me articulate this one clearly.
It’s more along the lines of this example:
1. It’s typically wrong to punch someone in the face.
2. It’s right to physical defend someone you love if they’re in danger.
3. Sometimes, I’m certain scenarios, it’s right to punch someone in the face, but otherwise it’s probably wrong.
Or this:
1. It’s wrong to arbitrarily murder a living thing
2. If your continued existence requires food, and you need to eat something that is alive, it is natural to take that creature’s life to preserve your own
3. Killing animals for fun is wrong, but for sustenance is okay.
(Note, I am not actually making an argument for veganism-unless-starving. Just using an example argument to try and explain my stance on morality in general).
Essentially, I believe a person’s choices *do* carry moral significance. It’s just that the significance is dependent on the situation itself, and upon the person’s condition when making the choice. Not always. But enough that legal “blankets” based on a moral code would fail to accurately represent the nuances of life.
Gotcha. So in those examples…who cares? Why is it wrong?
The point is that it may or may not be wrong, but that in certain situations a potentially “immoral” action shouldn’t be illegal
Partly because it’s hard for society to agree on what’s right and wrong (even though some things are definitively right or wrong). And partly because law will not always handle these questions in a fair/just way.