All the common normative ethical systems are forms of narrow morality. To Lumenos, they seemed to be flawed in that they are irrational ethical favoritisms, meaning they do not represent universal values as they would seem to claim. Broad morality (a neologism of Lumenos) was invented to be rational instead of favorist. Broad morality represents universal values because it regards them as incommensurable or conflicting, instead of claiming that one benefit is better than another (or that one person's benefit is more important than another's). But because rational consequism (aka ethical consequism) is unlike previous ethical systems, Lumenos was unsure if rational consequism should be called a moral system (ie broad morality/ethical consequism). However, rational consequism certainly denies a kind of nihilistic moral relativism. While it may regard "moral" values as arbitrary, it claims simpler values are not arbitrary. Pleasure, freedom, and knowledge are valuable even if there is not a basis for "morality" of the narrow/favorist type. There is a danger in people thinking that because narrow morality is false, this means life is meaningless. They seem to think that way sometimes.