“Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really ‘better’ than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society” (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local).

The idea of Cultural Relativism, as stated above, is appealing and a good scapegoat for the idea of what is moral. Based off of each individual society, certain acts are considered good while others are considered evil. This makes sense about how cultures differentiate in customs so much, but what about the “abnormals”, people who do not hold the same values in a certain culture, are they really immoral? If one abnormal travels to another culture, they could be considered moral. So how are human beings considered good or evil? Like James Rachels says in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, all societies must have some common morals in order to exist as a society, for instance, not to murder one another. I think that these innate morals that we have have developed with our cognitive processes through evolution. Why would our species murder each other for no reason? That would inhibit the progression of our kind. However, there are some cultures that are okay with murder, so that begs the question, who is moral and is morality innate?

Recently in our intro philosophy class and readings we have been talking about if morality exists because of God or if it is independent of God. An example we have often talked about are the atheists: why would atheists be moral if there is no punishment or reward for them in the afterlife? However, today I do not want to talk about how atheists have morals, but about religious people’s morals. The statements I am about to make take into account that not all theists are the same/believe in the same God.

There was a religious protest on the Oval this week, claiming that God commands women to be submissive to men and to not further their education, since they were only made to reproduce. I have attached a photo of the poster that they used to endorse this idea. Not only were women upset with this view, but men defended this inequality as well. This event made me think of the Divine Command Theory versus the Divine Independence Theory, and also about the evolution of morals. Do some theists believe that women should not be treated equal to men because God commands them to? In this situation, I believe the answer to this is yes. These theists not only tell women what roles they need to play, but also cite in the Bible where God has commanded so.

But what about the theists that do not believe this? Their morals are slightly different than these theists on the Oval; perhaps because of Divine Independence Theory and also the evolution of our species in the moral sense. Slavery was once thought moral, however now it is illegal. The Romans used to cheer and watch as they sent people to their deaths in the Colosseum, nothing like this happens in the United States nowadays. So if morals have developed to realize this treatment of other human beings is wrong, then why is the role of women constantly being argued? Why is equality still an issue?

In his paper Reasonable Religious Disagreements, Richard Feldman argues that with the same evidence shared between epistemic peers, the same conclusion should be drawn, or judgment suspended. Suspension of beliefs seems to be the best option in an argument, so both can express their evidence fairly and without bias towards the other. However, based on  experiences we have all witnessed in this Philosophy 1100H class, I question if suspended judgement exists or is fathomable. At the beginning of the semester an anonymous poll was taken asking who believes in God, who does not believe in God, and who is indifferent about the existence of God. If I remember correctly, the statistics were 9 believe in Him, 3 do not, 10 are indifferent. While the poll was anonymous, comments during class are not, and it is apparent when one cannot suspend judgement on a certain topic. I am not meaning to offend, but to only point out how relatable our readings are to our own comments during class. So is suspended judgement on religion possible? No, I don’t think so. However, I believe that in philosophy evidence is needed to support your belief. That may not be physical evidence, but reasonable evidence. For example, many classmates got upset by Louise M. Antony comparing God to a “tyrant” in Good Minus God. Yes, the verbiage is offensive to believers, but what is so wrong with suspending judgement for five minutes to access if God seems too controlling via the Divine Command Theory? It does seem wrong to be forced to follow a God based on punishment. It seems wrong to jump to conclusions about God not being a tyrant because it seems as though you are commanded to believe all He does is good. So maybe the Divine Independence Theory can be applied to this situation. After noticing situations like this come up in class, I am attempting to suspend judgement on every topic, which self-awareness needs to be practiced very much to do this; however, I believe I will be able to have a better view on each topic if looking at it from an open standpoint.

“Soul-Making” is a term used by John Hick in his work “The Problem of Evil.” As a response to the inevitable evils of natural disasters, Hick has proposed that Soul-Making is the explanation to these events. That is, to help us grow as individuals based off of experiences, some positive and some negative. His proposition makes sense to me, in a perfectly good world how would we as individuals grow? However I do have an issue with his explanation that soul-making’s purpose is so that “free beings, grappling with the tasks and challenges of their existence in a common environment, may become ‘children of God’ and ‘heirs of eternal life'” (Hick 44). How come the purpose of becoming a well developed individual is to please God and not ourselves? It does not make sense to me that through our suffering we should ultimately come closer to God and develop a relationship with Him if it is He who put us through the suffering in the first place. How come we are associating people with character are those who have suffered and now believe in God? Those that do not believe can also use their experiences to grow as an individual.