how the should respond in any given circumstance. While this theory seems great in an ideal world, people are no sensical beings. Most parents will do anything to protect their children, spouses form unbreakable bonds with each other, even friendships can have loyalty beyond all imaginability. There are unlimited circumstances in which personal bias and common sense come to bat. For example: Mary’s friends Sam has just told her that she murdered her abusive ex-boyfriend. Intuition will tell Mary to help Sam hide the body and erase her track because she cares for Sam, but common sense tells Mary she should distance herself from the situation and probably tell the police. P1: Intuition and personal bias tells people to protect their loved ones P2: Common sense and rationality tells people to uphold the law If personal bias didn’t exist, Mary would go to the cops and report a murder, but because she does have a personal bias, there is a very good chance that Mary will do whatever she can to protect her friend. The problems the three of these theories hold is no longer relevant in moral nihilism. While each person may have individual biases that may affect how they act, those biases don’t dictate whether the person acts ethically because there is no ethical truth. In the same situation as Mary, a moral nihilist would do whatever the felt like …show more content…
Moral nihilism does not endorse mass murder, It simply says that it is neither right or wrong. Genocide was an act committed by many people that caused death and pain to many other people. The act is not pleasant and most would consider it a shameful part of history. However it is important to realize that those opinions and our current society’s beliefs do not make the act any more or less ethical. The laws and standards a society has set most likely discourages events like the Holocaust but not because it is