More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of the book Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard
Critique of teleological ethical theories
Summary of the book Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This essay reflects on Søren Kierkegaard’s dialectic lyric, Fear and Trembling, written under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio. “The theme of Fear and Trembling is faith, with Abraham as a prototype of this highest human passion, and the presumptuousness of wanting to go further beyond faith” (Kierkegaard 93). Abraham violates the parental duty towards his son, for the sake of a higher ethical duty. Kierkegaard is both fascinated and stunned with this unreserved obedience to God, which could not be faltered even by the purest of father’s love. Out of the issues involved in Fear and Trembling, this essay will attempt to make sense of the argument involving the connection between the story of Abraham and a teleological suspension of the ethical. …show more content…
In order to make sense of this argument, we must first understand the proper meaning for the ethical. As stated by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling, “The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which from another angle means that it applies at all times. It rests immanent in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its telos but is itself the telos for everything outside of itself, and when the ethical has assimilated this, it does not go any further” (Kierkegaard 98). In short, the sphere of human interaction is regulated by a basis of universal moral laws that do not have to personally be benefit us; we just behave morally because it is the right way to act. Thus, morality does not serve any outer purpose; it is its own
Many people know the Christian God as happy, forgiving, and accepting of others. In the Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Jonathan Edwards’ sermon completely shocks and scares people by claiming that the Christian God is the only God, and if you weren’t to believe in him, you would burn in Hell and be destroyed. The tone of this piece in the eyes of Edwards is dedicated, passionate, and pro-Christian God. Edward achieves his purpose by using metaphors, repetition, personification, and visual imagery numerously throughout the sermon.
A disturbing thought about man’s ethical barometer is that most of the theories, categories and principles emanate from the point of man’s reason. There is a cause to shudder at the thought of man as the absolute authority of what is right and wrong; what is ethical and what is not. Born into a sinful nature, man will ultimately make decisions that will lead to a moral philosophy that is shaky at best. Even philosophers with the best of intentions fall short to God’s model for the order, organization, and meting out of ethical actions. Because of man’s finite vision of what should be done to improve the present situation, mankind will always be found lacking in making the best ethical decisions; not being able to see the long term outcome and the impact those decisions and actions would have on others in the world.
In this exploration, Di Silenctio – the story’s protagonist – focuses on Abraham’s motivation and rationale in relation to his belief that “God could give him a new Isaac, [and] bring the sacrificial offer back to life” (Kierkegaard Loc. 948). Abraham’s faith was not “that he should be happy in the hereafter, but that he should find blessed happiness here in this world” (ibid.). Abraham’s belief in the absurd serves to illustrate Kierkegaard’s rejection of Hegelian ethics; Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham as an example of his belief that the religious realm is somehow higher than the ethical realm of Hegelian ethics. It is this religious realm of ethics, wherein a “teleological suspension of the ethical” (Kierkegaard 1267) occurs that Di Silenctio attempts to explain. This teleological suspension of the ethical serves as both a rejection of universal ethics, and an acceptance of the fact that “as soon as the single individual wants to assert himself in his particularity, in direct opposition to the universal, he sins, and it is only by recognizing this can he again reconcile himself to the universal” (Kierkegaard 1225). Additionally, it is Abraham’s paradoxical acceptance of the absurd that allows him to fulfil his “duty to God” (Kierkegaard 403) while acting immorally (Isaac’s sacrifice amounts to murder,) and justifies his decision to not “reveal his intention to the parties
Morris defines morality as that aspect of our nature which strives for goodness, and he stresses that most people have misunderstood this dimension of human life. After searching through miles and miles of quotations, Morris came to the conclusion that most people's attitudes about ethics and morality were basically negative. That is, that morality was somehow put into place in order to prevent us from really enjoying life. They look at ethics as a restrictive form of social control. Morris believes that until we untangle ourselves from this illusion, “we will not appreciate one of the most important foundations for positive corporate spirit and sustainable success” (Morris p. 116).
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher in the mid 1800s. He is known to be the father of existentialism and was at least 70 years ahead of his time. Kierkegaard set out to attack Kant’s rational ethics and make attacks on the Christianity of our day. He poses the question, how do we understand faith? He states that faith equals the absurd. In “Fear and Trembling”, he uses the story of Abraham and his son Isaac to show an example of faith as the absurd. The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac signifies a break in the theory that ethics and religion go hand in hand. He shows how the ethical and the religious can be completely different. “I by no means conclude that faith is something inferior but rather that it is the highest, also that it is dishonest of philosophy to give something else in its place and to disparage faith” (Fear and Trembling, 12).
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
Ethics are the principles that shape individual lives in modern society. It is a subjective idea that seems to have a standard in society. Ethics and morals are the major factors that guide individuals to make right and wrong choices. Something that is morally right to one person might be the very opposite of what another person would view as right. There are many factors that can trigger a change in an individual’s view of morality.
How does the individual assure himself that he is justified? In Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Abraham, found in a paradox between two ethical duties, is confronted with this question. He has ethical duties to be faithful to God and also to his son, Isaac. He believes that God demands him to sacrifice Isaac. But, Abraham, firmly adhering to his faith, submitted to what he believed was the will of God. By using his perspective and that of his alternative guise, Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard concentrates on the story of Abraham in such a way that his audience must choose between two extremes. Either Abraham is insane or he is justified in saying he will kill Isaac.
This paper is a philosophical exploration of some aspects and implications of the "second great commandment", to "love thy neighbor as thyself", which Kierkegaard called the "royal command". This is often thought to be the heart of Christian ethics [Wattles, p.8].
Søren Keiekgaard was one of the greatest inspritational philosphers of his time and most of his inspirations came from The Holy Bible. He was born on May 5, 1813, in Copenhagen, Denmark, Søren Kierkegaard went on to pursue work as a philosopher, where he critiqued dominant Christian ideology and Hegelianism. He soon became the founder of Extenilism which “is the belief that the world has no intrinsic meaning or purpose and, consequently, that individuals alone bear the responsibility for their actions and decisions”. (Ref) His opinions differed from the mainstream thorolions of his time because his focus was more on the individual and there personal relationship with God, he didn’t think that God could be understood or found by logic. In his opinion, “God was greater than, not equicalent to, logic”. Therefore the only way to understand God, is through the leap for faith which is the opposite of reason. For it demands that one embrace the abusudity of the unexplaiable. Kierkegaard's faith is one that he refers to as authectic faith because it relies on one knowing that the it is impossible to explain and there is no reason for s...
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
Because of man’s depravity, reconciliation would not be possible unless God humbled himself to the lowest state: a servant. As such, kenosis bridges the gap between man’s frailty and God’s love. The challenge of the kenosis to Kierkegaard was that, in becoming man, God became unlike himself, and yet was still God. Kenosis was therefore a paradoxical act of sovereign grace.
...the concept of what should we do or what we ought to do. Ethics is design to help one receive the life they want and live it with purpose. In certain situations it’s unclear as to consider it moral or immoral as ethics comes to play alongside morality. Some would argue the concept of what can be define as moral as immoral in conjunction with ethics by means of feelings, religion, law, culture, and science. Although they prove good standings they cannot be accounted for as those rationales are more so that of opinion that are altered daily depending of that of the individual. For this reason any act can be considered moral as we can use descriptive education depicting that of ethics, in which we live a life seeking how things should be and that it depends on the individual. So who is to say what’s right and what’s wrong. If it exists in the universe it can be moral.
When asked what is the definition of ethics, many responded that being moral meant doing the right thing. But how can we justify what is a good action and what is a bad action? All humans were created equal, but our principles, and ways of thinking can be extremely different. Some may say doing the right thing means following your heart, your inner feelings and intuition. But emotions can be misleading. Others say in order to do what is the morally right thing means to follow the law and do what is right by society, to be accepted. But today’s society is judgmental and can be corrupted with numerous opinions due to the diversity of cultures. So what does it mean to be ethical? Being ethical means doing what is right in terms of virtues, fairness, duties, responsibilities, obligations, and moral believes all which derived from cultures and family backgrounds.