The way I interpret the four approaches to moral differences are as follows: Soft Universalism is where a person or people have certain morals they loosely base their actions/lifestyle on, but they don’t have any qualms with straying from them depending on the situation. I think this approach is more of a, coward’s way out, if you will. It basically means you don’t really have to stand by any morals whatsoever, because you can say you’re all for or all against something, until the situation arises where the odds are against you if you feel a certain way. Then, by all means, change your views to fit the status quo. Ethical Relativism is sort of a live and let live approach. If you can look at yourself in the mirror every day with the choices you make, more power to you. Whether I think you’re right or wrong, no matter, it’s your life and you live it how you want. No judgments. Or, at least, not an excessive amount. Hard Universalism reminds me of something similar to what Hitler believed, and that’s my way or the highway. All of [set A] is right and all of [set B] is wrong. There are no shades of gray; it’s only black and white. I’m not sure I could follow this morale simply because I believe there are extenuating circumstances where it’s ok for your morals to contradict each other. For example; I believe that murder of innocent people is wrong. By innocent I mean children, abused spouses, random shoot outs at schools, etc. However, I also believe that people who commit these heinous crimes should be killed, and in the same way they killed those innocent people. “An eye for an eye.” The last one is Moral Nihilism, which I am slightly convinced was the result of the first Woodstock. The idea is that there is no one way to view anything; there are essentially no morals because there is no wrong or right. Let us keep in mind, the idea of Woodstock started with an ad in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal by two of the four men responsible for the whole…
