You can make the case that everything you do in life is bad for something else, the point is that all choices must be ranked so stating that something is BAD is useless because arguably everything is BAD. That is not nihilism and I'm certainly not an advocate for war, I am an advocate for seriously considering choices. I said "compared to what", stating that "war is bad" again does not address the question.
It is nihilism, as explained. I did address the question.
One can't make the case that "everything arguably is bad", unless you are relativistic and reductionist to the point that any "arguable" negative consequence to anything is morally tantamount to the negative consequences of war. This is the type of moral absurdity that nihilists deal in.
Considering choices has nothing to do with the absolute characteristics of those choices.
Only nihilists feel the moral freedom to re-label absolute bad as not, if it is for their relative benefit.
I didn't say that you weren't free to do bad (I'm purposefully not using the word "evil" in order to maintain a tight reign on adjective use) in the service of what you feel is good. That might be an aspect of inescapable human nature (see factory farming).
What I imply is that human action isn't completely morally relativistic. Only nihilists or zealots with occluded moral reasoning think otherwise. No offense.
Maybe taoism is for you. It would allow you to resolve moral absurdity that you are otherwise trying to escape with nihilism. Personally, I'm not as atheistic as that. But at least it would be more consistent.
So you have some absolute line in the sand which exists for you to measure whether something is bad or not. Still it does not help you choose between two bad choices so how useful is that for you?
