In “Fear and Trembling,” Søren Aabye Kierkegaard bases his argument on a retelling of the Biblical story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Writing under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence), Kierkegaard argues that his retelling of the story demonstrates the importance of a teleological suspension of the ethical. The book is a treatise on the nature of faith and the meaning of genuinely having faith in God. Kierkegaard feared that mid-19th century Europe was becoming extremely eager to find something beyond people’s faith and the simplicity of belief in God, all in the name of intellectualism. However, Kierkegaard further notes that beyond faith is doubt about the existence of God, eternal life, and the Bible itself.
Kierkegaard’s point is that it is better to stop at faith, even though it is inferior than to continuously search for something beyond it because that “something beyond faith” is empty and meaningless. He intensively examines the concept of a teleological suspension of the ethical, arguing that one is justified to commit an unethical or sinful act, but only under the instructions of God, as demonstrated in the Story of Abraham and Isaac.
A teleological act has some expected goal, meaning that it suspends the ethical because the wisdom of God goes beyond human’s concept of the ethical. Nevertheless, many scholars have disagreed with this view, arguing that Kierkegaard failed to understand that suspended ethical guidelines originated in his belief system from God. The same source then required that same suspension and violation. Arguably, there should be no such thing as the as teleological suspension of the ethical because it is neither a possibility nor a good idea and even Kierkegaard has a hard time talking about it, as it is an incoherent idea.
It is imperative to understand the meaning of a teleological suspension of the ethical. The term ‘teleological’ means ‘in regards to the end’ or having an ultimate goal. For example, if someone is hungry and decides to eat bread with the goal of no longer getting hungry, then that person makes a teleological decision because the action has the objective of ending hunger. In the Biblical story, Abraham’s decision to sacrifice his son Isaac is a teleological act because he intends to obey and please God, even though killing a person is a sin and unethical. Abraham decides to suspend the ethics by killing his son because he has faith in the righteousness of the end (telos) that God guarantees. By deciding to sacrifice his only son, he believes that God cannot allow him to make an unethical end, which justifies his otherwise unethical decision. Thus, he puts religious concerns above ethical anxieties, proving his strong faith in God.
Nevertheless, another question arises- whether a teleological suspension of faith is possible or justified. In his book, Kierkegaard’s first “problemata” states that ethics is universal and that it is the telos for all aspects outside it. Abraham’s attempts to commit murder which implies that human sacrifices cannot be understood or tolerated in terms of the universal. As such, Kierkegaard argues that there must be a teleological suspension of the ethical, which made Abraham suspend his obligation to avoid murder for higher duty to God. In his second problemata, Kierkegaard contradicts Kantian ethics, arguing that there is an absolute duty to God., Abraham bypassed all his ethical obligations to obey God. As a result, he was tested and tempted by the universal, but he overcame it and decided to commit murder. In my view, however, this is not justified, and the suspension of the ethical is impossible.
The second issue is whether an individual should be above ethics for whatever reason. There has been no convincing argument based on any example, beginning from the four versions mused about in the prelude to problemata number III. Kierkegaard himself concludes that there is a dichotomous choice that either Abraham must be condemned or else he has achieved his goal as the Knight of Faith, in which case he must still be condemned for appearing to be a murderer – and not emulated. The ethical is universal, which means that it applies to every person and every instant. The universal repose immanently in itself and has nothing without itself, which is “telos.” The universal is itself “telos” for “everything outside it,” and if it has been incorporated by the ethical, it cannot go beyond that point. A person can only labor himself out of this situation if only he abandons himself as the particular in the universal. In the same way, the ethical characterizes a man’s eternal blessedness, which means that one cannot abandon the universal. In essence, it implies that the universal cannot be teleologically suspended. Since the ethical is the universal, then it cannot be teleologically suspended.
With his assumed name of Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard has a hard time discussing the teleological suspension of the ethical, mainly because the rationale for suspending it is a paradox of faith. In this case, faith is a paradox or an absurdity because it assumes that the particular is higher than the universal. It means that in the Biblical story, Abraham is lost because the ethical is moral and is the highest thing that cannot be exceeded. Indeed, it is impossible to mediate the position that the ethical, which is universal and thus superior, cannot be subordinate to a person who is “the particular.” It is also worth noting that all mediation comes about under the universal, which means that faith and the actions that Abraham does to justify that specific faith remain an eternal paradox and inaccessible to thought. Assuming that Abraham represents faith, then faith is usually expressed in a man whose life is not merely paradoxical such that it cannot be thought of at all.
Yet another issue of importance is to determine whether the teleological suspension of the ethical is a good thing. It appears that Kierkegaard does not understand that Abraham acts by the absurd, given that, paradoxically, he acts as if the particular is higher than the universal. Abraham cannot be considered a tragic hero in this case because his intention to kill Isaac is based on the virtue of absurdity. From this analysis, it is already clear that the suspension of ethics is not a good thing at all. If every person is allowed to suspend ethics, then people would be justified to act against morals and ethics, even violating laws. It could not possibly be a good thing, as demonstrated when Kierkegaard uses Abraham as an example of one who must be condemned ethically, cannot be understood or even spoken about, and fails even to conclude what to do with this knowledge. Abraham knows the result of his action would be death, which is against morals, ethics, and God’s will, yet he is ready to kill the boy based on the absurdity of faith secretly.
Abraham should be admonished for his action to kill his son. At the same time, one admires him for the vigorous pursuit of his belief and faith in God and loyalty. He does not decide to murder for personal aesthetic reasons or social or ethical reasons. Instead, the decision to kill is solely based on his faith that God has decided Isaac to die, being the creator of all living things and life. Nevertheless, I would greatly admonish Abraham for some reasons. It is his ethical duty to spare Isaac even though he has a religious obligation to kill the body. Ethics, unlike faith, are for the good of the many and transcend the personal aesthetic concerns of an individual. Since faith is, in this case, an absurdity, it cannot justify suspending the ethical by making the particular supersede the universal.
Abraham makes the decision alone without revealing his dilemma to others, including his wife and Eleazar. He should have disclosed God’s command to sacrifice his son. From a religious perspective, concealing anything is considered a sin. The ethical is “the universal” and should be disclosed. If an individual conceals anything, he is committing an unethical act and a sin and can only rectify it through disclosure. Unless there are reasons that an individual can become higher than the universal, concealment is not justifiable. Abraham can be condemned for not disclosing God’s command to others around him, including Isaac, Sarah, and Eleazar. Priest Eleazar was in the correct position to know the truth and probably ask The Almighty for guidance. Concealing the information amounts to acting for personal aesthetic reasons, which does not justify the decision and the action to kill Isaac.
In conclusion, Kierkegaard’s idea about the teleological suspension of ethics is impossible because individuals cannot be above ethics, just as people cannot be above laws. Using the example from Abraham’s story does not justify suspending ethics. Besides, people can use the justification to act unethically and illegally.