Teleological Suspension Of The Ethical Essay Research — страница 2

  • Просмотров 203
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 16
    Кб

`religious’ man. In the biblical story, Abraham is required by God to premeditate the sacrifice of his son as a sign of his faith to God. This presents Kierkegaard with a problem, as although the `religious’ life is a distinct and separate level of being from the `ethical’, the transition is a subsumption. That is, the religious provides the ethical with an additional depth rather then a complete reversal of values. It appears that there is a contradiction here, as in what is universally good (that being, in this case, not killing your own child) is abandoned by the very religion or God that provides it with meaning and purpose. To provide for this contradiction, Kierkegaard identifies the telos of God. In this situation, God requires a sign from Abraham that he is faithful

to him. That is God’s purpose in asking this of Abraham. The ethical, far from being removed from Kierkegaard’s equation, is merely suspended so that the purpose; the end result; the telos of God, can be achieved. This is what Kierkegaard means when he refers to the `teleological suspension of the ethical’. There are a number of problems with this though. The first is the apparently complete distinction between the `religious’ and `morality’. The nature of the goodness of God can surely be called into question if a teleological suspension of what is morally good is required, even for just a fraction of time, in order to follow the will of God. Further more, if God’s purpose involves a suspension of the universal good, then Kierkegaard’s theories seriously falter.

For how can the ethical be defined, as Kierkegaard defines it, as an alignment with the universal good, if that good can be suspended on account of a `higher good’, that is the telos of God? Is Kierkegaard suggesting that there are two levels of good, perhaps, and that when one reaches the `religious’ it is on occasion necessary to act in accordance with the higher good and deny the good by which those living by the `ethical’ live their lives? Kierkegaard seems short on answers when one considers the inevitable confrontation between these to conflicting sources of `goodness’, which lead to an apparent potential contradiction of the `highest good’ which Kierkegaard has identified. Of course, in the example of Abraham and Isaac, the suspension of the ethical for the

purposes of the religious did not result in this conflict between goodness (discounting the premeditation involved in the mind of Abraham) for God stopped Abraham before he ended his child’s life. Therefore in this case the implication is that the telos of God was to observe a demonstration of obedience in Abraham and not to kill Isaac. However in the very suspension of the ethical, God contradicts himself and the philosophy of Kierkegaard in this respect requires further explanation. For God must be the constant in order for the stages of life to work. It is impossible for God to override himself yet that is apparently what has happened here – God has contradicted himself in order for his purposes to be fulfilled. The only way God could not have contradicted himself is if

there was no suspension of the ethical, which is a real possibility. For if it was not a command of God to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and it was merely a test of Abraham’s faithfulness, then God did not override his own commands and nature, as there was no commandment that Isaac should die. In this sense, in as much as there was no command, there was also no suspension of the ethical. In conclusion, to suggest that there is any kind of suspension of the ethical, in as far as Kierkegaard describes the ethical, is to deny the very notion of the religious and its place within leading a good life. For the ethical is the attunement of life to the universal good. And for God to suspend this good in order to fulfil a purpose which by logic would not include the good it usually would

is to deny the very notion that this good was truly `good’ in the first place. The idea that God would use the unethical – put into action a sequence of events that is contrary to the universal good – to appropriate his purpose not only calls into question the value of God, or of the universal good, but also leads to misinterpretations of God whose manifestations are violence and wars. The only reasonable explanation, if God is to be upheld and Kierkegaard’s philosophies are to be believed, is that there was no suspension of the ethical at all; that God remained consistent and his suggestion to Abraham that he kill his own son was a test of Abraham’s obedience and nothing more. Further questions regarding the morality of a God that would use such apparently hideous ways