Teleological Suspension Of The Ethical Research

Teleological Suspension Of The Ethical Essay, Research Paper

A clear apprehension of what Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 ) meant by the

`suspension of the ethical ’ can be achieved upon careful survey of his wider

doctrines on phases or facets of an single ’ s life. In this short text I

will analyze these doctrines, researching what Kierkegaard meant by each one.

I ’ ll so put into context these phases of life by looking at them in relation

to that which Kierkegaard ’ s text `Fear and Trembling ’ ( in which he introduces

the construct of a teleological suspension of the ethical ) is based on: that being

the scriptural narrative of Abraham and Isaac.

Finally, I ’ ll analyze the jobs of

his theory and research some of the givens and pre-requisites it

necessitates.

First I find it necessary to understand the context in which Kierkegaard wrote

and believed the doctrines we now explore. Kierkegaard ’ s Hagiographas were non

without a intent or docket. His ain life was the beginning by which he inside informations his

wider more abstract theories on life in general.

He is per se linked to

the Christian religion, and he writes with that in the head of his head.

Indeed, `Fear and Trembling ’ itself is based upon a transition of Bible which

Kierkegaard examines and bases his points upon. The point Kierkegaard is doing

finally is that he believes that the `religious ’ phase of life ( one of three

he feels he has discovered ) is the 1 that means the most and should be

desired. Kierkegaard identifies an experiential patterned advance between these phases

which is, on initial survey, contradicted by the transition of Bible he tackles.

It is by analyzing these phases that the reply to the inquiry set can be

revealed.

The first of these phases is the aesthetic. For Kierkegaard, this is the lowest

signifier of being. For a peculiar homo being to take an aesthetic being would

necessitate him to indulge strictly in sensuous pleasances. The deduction in the

aesthetic is that merely the external provides value. However, Kierkegaard ’ s

suggestion is that this degree of being deficiencies anything outside of itself. Its

value, he submits, is null of significance and way and those who inhabit this

being merely base on balls from one meaningless satisfaction of the senses to the

following with no existent intent.

There is, harmonizing to Kierkegaard, a patterned advance of kinds to a higher phase of

life. A passage to a degree being in which the specific is subsumed, that is

transported and incorporated by, the following in the degree of being, the

ethical. At this phase, an person is populating in conformity with what he

describes as the `universal good ’ and in this the ethical is mindless. What I

mean by that is that the ethical requires the stepping down of the person in

conformity with the cosmopolitan good. Yet the ethical can non be without the

single to give it organize. The single turns inward and considers the purpose of

life in regard to himself. In one sense it empowers the aesthetic with value

and significance, therefore the satisfaction of the senses can go the grasp of

beauty. However, Kierkegaard regards the spiritual phase of life non merely to be

the highest, but besides imperative in giving the ethical significance and way.

By `religious life ’ Kierkegaard is mentioning to the encountering and credence

of his, the Christian, God. It isn ’ t clear if the `religious ’ is confined merely

to his God, or whether differing personal beliefs have a topographic point within

Kierkegaard ’ s definition of this degree of being. The `religious ’ makes sense of

the ethical, harmonizing to Kierkegaard. Apparently deducing that making good for

the interest of good is nonmeaningful and closer to an egocentric sense of aesthetic

satisfaction so meaningful being, Kierkegaard looks to the spiritual to

give life way and telos, that is purpose.

For the benefit of `Fear and Trembling ’ , Abraham is this `religious ’ adult male. In the

scriptural narrative, Abraham is required by God to premeditate the forfeit of his

boy as a mark of his religion to God. This presents Kierkegaard with a job, as

although the `religious ’ life is a distinguishable and separate degree of being from the

`ethical ’ , the passage is a minor premise. That is, the spiritual provides the

ethical with an extra deepness instead so a complete reversal of values. It

appears that there is a contradiction here, as in what is universally good ( that

being, in this instance,

non killing your ain kid ) is abandoned by the really

faith or God that provides it with significance and intent.

To supply for this contradiction, Kierkegaard identifies the telos of God. In

this state of affairs, God requires a mark from Abraham that he is faithful to him.

That is God ’ s aim in inquiring this of Abraham. The ethical, far from being

removed from Kierkegaard ’ s equation, is simply suspended so that the intent ;

the terminal consequence ; the telos of God, can be achieved. This is what Kierkegaard

agencies when he refers to the `teleological suspension of the ethical ’ .

There are a figure of jobs with this though. The first is the seemingly

complete differentiation between the `religious ’ and `morality ’ . The nature of the

goodness of God can certainly be called into inquiry if a teleological suspension

of what is morally good is required, even for merely a fraction of clip, in order

to follow the will of God. Further more, if God ’ s aim involves a suspension

of the cosmopolitan good, so Kierkegaard ’ s theories earnestly falter. For how can

the ethical be defined, as Kierkegaard defines it, as an alliance with the

universal good, if that good can be suspended on history of a `higher good ’ ,

that is the telos of God? Is Kierkegaard proposing that there are two degrees of

good, possibly, and that when one reaches the `religious ’ it is on juncture

necessary to move in conformity with the higher good and deny the good by which

those life by the `ethical ’ live their lives? Kierkegaard seems short on

replies when one considers the inevitable confrontation between these to

conflicting beginnings of `goodness ’ , which lead to an evident potency

contradiction of the `highest good ’ which Kierkegaard has identified.

Of class, in the illustration of Abraham and Isaac, the suspension of the ethical

for the intents of the spiritual did non ensue in this struggle between

goodness ( dismissing the forethought involved in the head of Abraham ) for God

stopped Abraham before he ended his kid ’ s life. Therefore in this instance the

deduction is that the telos of God was to detect a presentation of obeisance

in Abraham and non to kill Isaac. However in the very suspension of the ethical,

God contradicts himself and the doctrine of Kierkegaard in this regard

requires farther account. For God must be the changeless in order for the

phases of life to work. It is impossible for God to overrule himself yet that is

seemingly what has happened here – God has contradicted himself in order for

his intents to be fulfilled.

The lone manner God could non hold contradicted himself is if there was no

suspension of the ethical, which is a existent possibility. For if it was non a

bid of God to Abraham to give Isaac, and it was simply a trial of

Abraham ’ s fidelity, so God did non overrule his ain bids and nature,

as there was no commandment that Isaac should decease. In this sense, in every bit much as

there was no bid, there was besides no suspension of the ethical.

In decision, to propose that there is any sort of suspension of the ethical,

in every bit far as Kierkegaard describes the ethical, is to deny the very impression of

the spiritual and its topographic point within taking a good life. For the ethical is the

attunement of life to the cosmopolitan good. And for God to suspend this good in

order to carry through a intent which by logic would non include the good it normally

would is to deny the very impression that this good was genuinely `good ’ in the first

topographic point. The thought that God would utilize the unethical – put into action a sequence of

events that is contrary to the cosmopolitan good – to allow his intent non

merely calls into inquiry the value of God, or of the cosmopolitan good, but besides

leads to misunderstandings of God whose manifestations are force and wars.

The lone sensible account, if God is to be upheld and Kierkegaard ’ s

doctrines 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 ain boy was a trial of Abraham ’ s obeisance and nil more. Further

inquiries sing the morality of a God that would utilize such seemingly horrid

ways to `test ’ his worshippers besides lead us to name into inquiry the `good ’ that

one empowers this figure with, all taking to the decision I make the these

phases Kierkegaard present us with, in connexion with this transition of

Bible, require farther attending.