Final answer:
Moral relativism holds that ethics are relative to social, cultural, or individual contexts, with no universal truths, while nihilism denies intrinsic worth or truth in any moral values, considering all ethical statements as baseless.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between moral relativism and nihilism pertains to their views on the nature of moral values and ethics. Moral relativism is the view that moral principles are valid, but they are not absolute and universal. Instead, they are relative to the social, cultural, or individual context in which they arise. Moral relativists believe that what is considered 'right' or 'wrong' can vary greatly between different societies and individuals, without any standpoint being objectively superior to another.
On the other hand, nihilism, particularly moral nihilism, goes a step further by rejecting the idea that any moral values or ethical statements have intrinsic worth or truth. Nihilists argue that life lacks inherent meaning, purpose, or value, and consequently, they see all moral and ethical claims as baseless.
While moral relativism and nihilism are both forms of moral skepticism, they diverge in their implications for moral decision-making. Relativism allows for a variety of moral codes to coexist, each with validity within their own context, whereas nihilism denies the very existence of valid moral judgments.