It is an intro and I am enjoying it.

I don't know that I'm a moral nihilist, though I have called myself a 'hopeful nihilist' from time to time in that I'm pretty sure that there's no point to any of this and it doesn't matter, but I'm hoping I'm wrong and so I act as though it may matter.
I believe that morality, the morality we can discuss, debate and act upon, is purely subject to perspective, both individual and collective. If there is an objective morality, there is no evidence of it that we can point to outside of ourselves and society and cultures. Unless we consider the way of the natural world, sans mankind, to be an example of morality, and then morality has nothing to do with consent, injury or death. It is simply survival and what it takes to achieve that both individually and as a species since, in nature, we see that the 'morality', if it is that, allows for rape, murder, theft, neglect, et cetera, all to serve the purpose of the individual's own survival and the overall survival of the species and, thus, systems it is involved in.

All that said, I believe that, though morality be relative, that does not mean that this is a justification to moralize things such as rape and murder. While one is certainly free to do so, those that perceive this morality to be, in 'fact', immoral are free to not only disagree but to intercede and at upon their own morality in attempts to deter, prevent, subdue and end the threat such a moralization of rape presents to individuals, communities and society at large.
Perhaps to put it, hopefully, more simply, I believe that our moralities are relative culturally and individually but that the prevailing moralities and overlaps in moralities will be the normative morality at the time and in the place and thus may be used, in that time and place, to determine, to a degree, morality.

However, even this fails to truly encompass what I 'believe' in this vein as I do not believe that accepted notions of 'morality' or norms are, in fact, moral. My morals say that, above all else, what is moral does not cause undue harm to the unconsenting accept when necessary to protect oneself or another.

As I pointed out above, there is no way to create a truly static normative definition of morality in order to then be able to derive what is or is not moral on a 'universal' scale per cultural and individual perception. Morality is, in addition to being relative in all practicality, fluid. It changes with our perception and with the perceptions of the culture.

And this is where Kant likely helps to describe much of my outlook, intellectual autonomy. I weigh and determine the credibility of things based on my own reasoning and rationale. Often, I will oppose the norm simply because I find it to be lacking in reason, logic or rational thought.

Rants aside, I really don't know where I stand in terms of philosophical position. I see credibility in many 'opposing' principles and schools of thought and often forge my own 'hybridized' lines of reasoning based on those and my own experience and perception. While I am not arrogant enough to believe that my conclusions are truly unique, I will say that I have not read the book, paper, or statement that emulates how I view the world in these things, as well or better than I can vocalize them.