On Kierkegaard and the Suspension of the Ethical November 21, 2011
Posted by Matt in theology.Tags: Abraham, Alameda, EFM, Elliott Smith, god, Isaac, Kant, morality, Soren Kierkegaard, teleological suspension of the ethical, theology
2 comments
I’ll return to the Awake My Soul series soon, maybe following the Thanksgiving holiday, but today I had another subject to bring up for discussion and perhaps find some additional insight.
Last week’s EfM (Education for Ministry) reading took me to the story of Abraham, namely that which regards his near-sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Now, I have read this story numerous times in the past, but this time I did so with a more critical eye and came away with some perplexing questions.
First, of course, I read the Biblical account, followed by the EfM notes regarding it, and then quickly reread Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, to give a little extra understanding and perspective on the story. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the patriarchal tale, but in case you are not, this recounts God’s telling Abraham to sacrifice the son promised to him, Isaac. Abraham goes to do so, but God stops him at the last minute, instead sending an animal for sacrifice, thus rendering the faith of Abraham as the standard by which to live.
The story bothers me on a number of accounts. What does it say about Abraham that he was willing to bargain with God for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but went along unquestioningly when it involved his own son? What does it say for the character of God to order such an action, regardless of the fact that a scapegoat, as it were, was introduced at the last minute?
Kierkegaard explains this long-standing quandary by appealing to what he terms, a “teleological suspension of the ethical,” meaning that God’s ways are higher and more important than those principles we regard as moral, those presumably put in place by God. He goes on to call Abraham a “knight of faith,” for going against human moral conventions in his “infinite resignation” to the will of God and in his “absolute duty to God.”
In my view that makes God out to be quite manipulative and capricious, with an arbitrary attitude toward morality. Believe me, I’m no Kantian moral absolutist. I believe that laws and ethics have a highly situational aspect to them. At the same time, I do not at all buy into the maxim that “the ends justify the means,” a short sentence that can be used to justify everything from relatively inconsequential actions to dropping an atomic bomb.
So, I’m torn and like everyone else I do not have a satisfactory answer. Instead, I’ll turn to the tragic existentialist poet Elliott Smith, whose sadness and beauty shown like a dimly lit star, one snuffed out some eight years ago. These are the lyrics to his song “Alameda.”
You walk down Alameda
Shuffling your deck of trick cards over everyone
Like some precious only son
Face down, bow to the champion
You walk down Alameda
Looking at the cracks in the sidewalk
Thinking about your friends
How you maintain all of them in a constant state of suspense
For your own protection over their affection
Nobody broke you heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Walk down Alameda
Brushing off the nightmares you wish
Could plague me when I’m awake
And now you see your first mistake
Was thinking that you could relate
For one or two minutes she liked you
But the fix is in
You’re all pretension
I never pay attention
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
Nobody broke your heart
You broke your own because you can’t finish what you start
If you’re alone it must be you that wants to be apart.
