The genesis of defining ethics has to come from somewhere, but because we are born into a world of sin there is a humanistic element that is embedded from within. To enumerate, the ongoing battle between the kernel of two separate truths between man and spirit creates difficulty in our comprehension of any veracity. Genesis 1:1 (the King James Version) states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Holy Bible ). This is God announcing He is the author of the Bible and the Creator of all things. This also establishes the two separate entities of Heaven and Earth. We then see in Genesis chapters two and three in the fall of mankind which takes place on Earth, a reestablishment of these two separate entities when God confronts Adam and Eve. God came from Heaven to walk on Earth with Adam and Eve whom He made from the dust of His creation which was His Creation. It is important to note that, the first appearance of sin takes place in Heaven with Lucifer, and He is thrown from Heaven. Again here, we see the perfection of God in Heaven was to be maintained, and a division between Heaven and Earth does indeed exist which reinforces two separate entities. Therefore, since God created all things, then His creation of both good and evil were also created by Him, and this points to our God-given free will. We have man choosing to live his/her own way, and we have God, our Creator’s ethics which are rooted in faith, and the gifts of His Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. 

   With all of this in mind, to open, if ethics solely refers to a theory of what is morally right and wrong, then there is an implied absolute steadfastness under the recognition of good and evil. In other words, there is a predetermined acceptance of a polar opposite existence which leaves the door open for questioning how a conclusion can be reached beforehand in this definition of ethics. Additionally, this definition of ethics is now simply a theory that needs to be accepted for any recognition to even occur. To clarify, if the theory of ethics is accepted in terms of morals, then it would directly impact one’s definition of morals as well. For a clear example of this, let us look at two separate definitions of metaethics with the intent to morally evaluate the research process. In Moral Reasoning An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right From Wrong, Michael S. Jones states, “In the case of metaethics we are talking about the attempt to see behind the scene of someone’s moral presuppositions in order to discover and evaluate the beliefs and methods on which they are based” (Jones 5). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words” (DeLapp). After careful examination, we can see that Jones boils metaethics down to a singular person then expands outward, while Adam DeLapp leaves to door open to a plethora of variables under the wing of philosophy. With Jones taking the approach of a single perspective lens, there is an implication that acceptance has already taken place. While it is true that Jones’ definition dictates that once one’s beliefs are formulated an examination into how they were generated is necessary to determine metaethics, the assumption of a singular lens is a canard that inveigles and obfuscates truth in research. Proper research in terms of understanding philosophies begins with immersion into those philosophies. Once we grasp an understanding of those philosophies a more narrow casted investigation can begin to take place until we come to a singular perspective. Once this singular perspective is reached, we then immerse ourselves through their perspective and expand outwardly to circumvent our own biases. What is interesting is that our own relationships with Christ Jesus reflect this very formula. Once we research, then accept Him, we begin to see the world through His eyes rather than the humanistic view.

   Ultimately, Socrates, stated, “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people” (Goodreads Socrates Quotes ). This writer contends that Socrates held the belief that research on philosophies is required to obtain a strong mind for the focus upon ideas to generate a healthy discussion. This same approach is required of us by God. God wants us to focus on His ideologies to obtain a strong mind, and better grasp His steadfastness. We cannot accept His steadfastness until we research His Word which contains His philosophies. There is also the variable of God-given free will which allows us to choose once we understand the philosophies we research. All in all, research into Virtue Ethics, Consequential Ethics, Social Contract Theory, and Divine Command Theory needs to occur before the variable of acceptance even entering into play. 

Works Cited

DeLapp, Kevin M. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . 2018. 07 October 2018. <https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/>.

Goodreads Socrates Quotes . n.d. 07 October 2018. <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/472923-strong-minds-discuss-ideas-average-minds-discuss-events-weak-minds>.

Holy Bible . Thomas Nelson Publishers , 1997.

Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguisihing Right from Wrong . Dubuque,IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., 2017. 03 September 2018.