Free Will and Objective Standards

I think Benedict’s arguments put up a good argument for the existence of morality without the need for god. Benedict talks about how a thing that is normal in one culture might be abnormal in a different culture and therefore god does not decide what is objectively moral. If we use the Eskimo example from Rachel’s piece, the concept of infanticide may not make sense to us at all but for them it means survival of the general population in a way. This difference in thinking also provides a good example for the argument against cultural relativism, which is what Rachel’s tries to do throughout the piece. Her argument seems valid because humans have free will which is the ability to decide for oneself what actions are appropriate and what to or not to believe in. Free will also explains for the change in ideas and beliefs over time. The role of women for example has changed over time. Women were at first thought to be child bearers and only in charge of household chores. Today however they have more freedom, work, and can even vote. Because of changes in thinking like this, the idea of cultural relativism is disproved.

Another point I want to make is that although there may not be objective moral values there does seem to exist some objective standards. With the eskimo example of infanticide, although their reason of trying to save the population by killing infants might seem weird and weak to us, if a situation relating to survival arose, we too would take whatever necessary measures to protect ourselves and our families. The idea of survival is therefore an objective standard. Rachel’s article provided murder and lying as potential examples as well.