Oh, you want elaboration? I'll give you elaboration.
1- morality is always a human construct, whether it comes from religion or personal beliefs.
2- morality itself can't be good or bad. That would be a circular reasoning, using morality to classify morality.
So, up until this point, It would be pretty easy to classify myself as an ethical nihilist, right? BUT
3- according to 2, morality is, therefore, a vacuum, an emptiness. Does it exist? only if we want it to exist.
Do we want morality to exist? yes. why? because we are not alone, and chaos is not an option, moral nihilism is a very valid choice, but I feel it's a very dangerous one, too, If there is no morality, then, what is stopping you from killing the guy in the ferrari and riding that baby to the sunset?
Is it Law?
Is it conscience?
If we have free will (spiritually, philosophically) and freedom (legally), the only thing we should answer to is ourselves; and, again, if morality doesn't matter to you, what's stopping you?
That's what's dangerous, not the message that all, including morality, is relative, but the interpretation that morality is null, because if you do kill the ferrari guy, you are imposing your non-morality over his morality (he hasn't kill you, after all... yet...).
I think Kant's categorical imperative gives a pretty straightforward answer to the morality question:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"
In layman's terms, That phrase is to ethics what (e^i*PI)+1=0 is to the universe. A beautiful and elegant way of expressing the mind-bending complexity of a subject most of us wouldn't fully understand in several lifetimes in a phrase that can fit into a T-shirt.
And before someone says "oh, wise and incredibly cute professorlight, why should we want morality to exist when the alternative is getting consequence free wanton slaughter?"
I say: pragmatism. As enticing wanton slaughter is, in any case, in any scenario, you will be the next to die (yes, you, I'm watching you. Stop touching yourself. gross.) that's where the categorical imperative really shines, "if you don't want to die, don't kill", "if you value your property, don't steal" according to it, everyone is equal, and if someone kills, then he can be killed, if someone doesn't care about the others, the others won't care about him. (I just shed a tear, this is too beautiful.).
Is there a way to avoid morality entirely? why yes, there is. Be like an animal; they are not subjected to any kind of moral restrictions (they can kill an innocent creature as easily as they breastfeed their young, smell each other's asses, etc), but then don't complain when the other, sane people shoot you in the head.
Nietzche talked about the "man not subjected to morality". This "superman", as he called it (not to be confused with THE superman copyright by DC comics) was in a superior state of existance, outside of all moral and societal restrictions. Sounds suspiciously like a ethical nihilist, right? WRONG. Nietzche's superman (nanana,nanananana, nanananana, nananana nananaaaaaaaaaa, nanananaaaaa... sorry) was also the epitome of excellence, in everything, and it would stand to reason that, while we inferior beings would have no business standing in his way and he would be justified in squishing us like the bugs we are, he wouldn't have any problems with another superman, being both perfectly reasonable beings, capable of mutual understanding, therefore, turning morality unnecessary.
So back to the begining: Is there a way to avoid morality entirely?
yes. be an animal and suffer the consequences, or try your best to be a superman and get some g******* perspective on understanding others.
*drops the mic*
Maybe a specific example could help? What was the video about for example?
