Ethics

Morality, since time immemorial, has succumbed to a pluralistic interpretation. This is because of the diverse perspectives that have been used in determining what is moral or what is immoral. These diversity of interpretation, therefore, leads to different ethicalmoral theories that are used as determinants of morality, for example, moral objectivism, utilitarianism, ethical relativism, moral subjectivism, Christian morality and consequential morality just to mention a few. Every category of the abovementioned theories in morality has its peculiar belief on what really is the arche of morality as they do not settle for one primordial determinant or source. This study will focus on divinity vis a vis secularity in respect to the principles of morality. In a bid to establish the creator of moral principles, views of various proponents such as Immanuel Kant and his moral argument, Thomas Aquinas, Plato and his doctrine of Participation, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and his doctrine of the Leviathan will be considered.  Eventually, a synthesis of the aforementioned ethicalmoral theories will be demonstrated. In general, the main emphasis in the study, is to establish the why of morality in other words, the origin of morality.

The Notion of Morality
It is essential to understand the moral theories mentioned above and their influence on morality. This is because these moral theories become the windows through which human actions are regarded as right or wrong. Note that morality is about human acts as animals cannot be held accountable as far as morality is concerned. This means an animal, say a lion, after feeding on an entire prey without considering the rest of the lions cannot be said to act good or bad. This act, therefore, is amoral since it is neither good nor bad in moral judgments. The point here is that morality revolves only in the world of humans. Therefore, moral theories become the framework through which morality is evaluated and determined.

It is important to distinguish between prescriptive inclination and descriptive inclination when presenting a moral theory. Sociologists and anthropologists will concern themselves in describing how people behave and proceed in drawing moral judgments in regard to the malice or benevolence in their conduct. On the contrary, philosophers aim at establishing the proper criterion to report morality. This is because they are concerned with the ought as far as good or bad is concerned in the human moral thinking or judgment. As noted above, there have been many different opinions. The following is a concise review.

Theories in Morality
Moral Subjectivism equates everything to the mere thinking of the person. In such a case what is deemed right or wrong is dependent on the feeling of the individual involved. For example, it is illegal to kill especially felony murder. But for moral subjectivists, it does not matter whether the law forbids killing what counts is the wish of the person involved. All is left to hisher conscience. As can be seen, it secludes any idea or impression of moral principles and moral criticism. In such a situation, communities will never settle for an amicable standpoint on moral grounds. It is such a chaotic state of affairs where every person does what she feels. Multi-culturality also contributes a great deal in moral relativism. One culture will defend its beliefs and customs notwithstanding the moral defects it has. For example, cases of genital mutilation or female circumcision especially in Africa has been widely condemned by people of moral sense and integrity. However, it continues to be evident in different cultural practices. The concerned communities strongly assert their practice and call for respect and recognition of their culture.

Self-interest or egoistic inclinations have been used to determine the right or wrong in the world today. Unfortunately, every society seeks to maximize its well-being first and anything detrimental to that is never entertained. Here, the means are justified only if they lead to the desired good. For example, a country may decide to bomb another country to get capture some economic materials say minerals. The country will careless whether some people may die as result of the explosion so long as they capture the minerals. Again, such egoistic tendencies discredit the possibility of philanthropy. It assumes that philanthropy is never pure in that the agents or subjects are moved by selfish ends. This, therefore, in the case of morality justifies an action as good if it promotes an inherent selfish interest. For example, a person who kills his colleagues so that she may inherit some property in order to become richer is justified from the point of view of the moral egoism.

In economic terms, when a good or service satisfies a human want or need it is said to possess utility. This understanding can be used to understand utilitarianism as a moral theory. Its dispositions are similar to those of the consequentialist moral theory in fact the two theories can be used interchangeably.  In this point of view, right or wrong draws from the utility or benevolence of the outcome of an action. Here the famous expression suffices which states that the end justifies the means. If abortion will rescue the life of the mother from death or it will safe her from dropping out of school then for utilitarianism, it is morally worth-while. Having reviewed the above moral theories the following moral theories are important as they look at morality from a metaphysical point of view and this is important for this study.

Transcendental approach to morality
Transcendence simply means to go beyond or to transcend the mind, especially the human mind. It has been argued that what exists in the mind is logical and ontological. Therefore, there are some realities that exist in the mind, there are those realities that exist outside the mind and there are those realities that the mind cannot conceive unless aided by a supreme being. This translates to divinity or extreme objectivism. Considering this fact, morality is believed by some proponents to belong to a certain authority such that we as human beings take in participation. The doctrine of participation for Plato gives no room for morality as a human affair but as something acquired from the World of Ideas. He notes that virtue in its perfect from exists in the world of perfect realities and other realities have s hare of it in their different capacities. Therefore, morality which is virtue per se is only part and parcel of humanity in participation. Thomas Aquinas echoes this assertion when he says that a human being as a rational creature can maneuver its ways. In addition, it shares in eternal reason and this participation of the eternal law in human beings is called the natural law (2008). Natural law is a major topic in morality and many moralists have recommended it in any efforts in legislation. It is a pillar in the law-making processes as it acts as the basis of good laws. As can be seen from Aquinas assertion, natural law is a share of the eternal law identified with a Supreme Being, which many call God. Therefore, if eternal law is identified with God and that mans natural law is a share of this eternal law, it can be drawn from the two premises that mans natural law is identified with God, however, by way of limitation.

As noted above the link between morality and God confirms the belief in most claims that there exists a necessary connection between morality and religion. It had been outlined earlier that there is such a thing as Christian morality. In this view, no God, no morality therefore, God becomes the measure of what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral teachings suffice from quoting the scripture especially the Ten Commandments and the Gospel according to Christs Gospel. For instance, a group of people will condemn acts of fornication or adultery as morally wrong because one of the commandments forbids adultery. In deed, it is written that you shall not commit adultery.

Virtue and ethics cannot be treated as separate concepts. This is emphasized by Aristotle when he equates right and wrong with the traditional virtues, the aids to forming a good person. No doubt that the good person of Aristotle is of moral integrity and uprightness. Just like Plato talked of temperance, fortitude, and wisdom as the highest virtues that any human being should strive for so does Aristotle. In fact, it is believed that the works of Aristotle are but footnotes of Plato. Happiness is the ultimate end of every man and can only attain it when she acts within the frame of reason, the distinguishing feature of the traditional virtues (Aristotle, 2001). The most important thing is that Aristotle accepts the fact that there is a objective reason why a human being acts morally.Linking Aristotle to Kantian Moral Theory rationality determines right or wrong. His famous Summum Bonum derives from this. Law or duty defines what is to be regarded as good or what is to be regarded as bad. His maxims are widely quoted especially that one should do a duty for dutys sake and that one should only act in manner that can be universally accepted or desired. Most importantly is that Summum Bonum is the Highest Good or end. It is equivalent to pleasure or happiness. Note the relationship of Aristotles happiness and this one of Kant. It is important to note that one of the arguments on the existence of God is based on Kantian Moral Argument as explicated above. This clearly, settles for a supreme authority.

For Hobbes the Leviathan is the determinant of good or wrong. Everything is left to the judgment of the ruler. She uses his kingship to define morality.

Conclusion
As we can see there are different approaches to what determines good or bad in ethics. Seen in this light, valid and sound moral arguments cannot simply involve making assertions from one theory to the next. Sometimes we need to adjust our positions about what moral theory we think is good or bad. Of course some of the theories need modification.