The Suspension of the Ethical and the Religious Meaning of Ethics in Kierkegaards ThoughtEssay Preview: The Suspension of the Ethical and the Religious Meaning of Ethics in Kierkegaards ThoughtReport this essayIn the article, “The Suspension of the Ethical and the Religious Meaning of Ethics in Kierkegaards Thought,” Avi Sagi describes the relationship between morality and religion. Sagi, then, brings up his view in different approaches. The question of whether morality and religion are dependent of each other is the main focus of this article. Avi Sagi believes that morality and religion are independent of each other, and something is not moral because it is religious. For me, I agree with Avi Sagi in some ways, but also disagree with him in other aspects of his article. In Sagis words, this occurs when a religious duty is contradictory to a moral duty. This can be shown throughout the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis of the Bible.
Sagi opens his article with his view and the way that he will attack this issue, that issue being the relation between morality and religion. In one approach, Sagi plans to describe religion and its dependency on morality or morality and its dependency on religion. He then breaks this approach into two sub-approaches. These smaller approaches further describe two different ways in which this approach is proven. After providing a detailed explanation of this view, Sagi displayed a different approach in which morality and religion are two independent subjects and have no relation. Sagi also makes two different ways of describing this approach. During the whole of this article, Sagi describes both views and remains unbiased until he gets to his argument. He also uses the story of Abraham to support and contradict both approaches in different ways. Most of Sagis points originate through “Fear and Trembling” by Kierkegaard.
Sagis first approach is that morality and religion are dependent of each other. In this view, Gods command can be morally justified. In the story of the Bible, Abrahams command from God was to sacrifice his son, Isaac. By this approach, because God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, it is moral. This approach can be broken into two of what Sagi named versions. These two versions differ in the way that they are morally justified.
The first version of this approach states that “Gods command is justifiable in terms of ordinary, human moral considerations.”(Sagi, pg. 84). In the context of the primary source, Abraham follows the command to sacrifice his son, Isaac, because God told him to. Also, Abraham went through with the sacrifice because he felt like his son would not have to be sacrificed. The article goes in to mention that ones actions can be defined as moral if they are under command of a good god. Because God was a good god, he deserves faithfulness from Abraham.
With this version in mind, Abraham would be immoral if he were to refuse sacrificing his son, Isaac. This makes sense, but how can a good god be distinguished from a bad god? If Hades was considered a bad god and ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, it would be moral not to kill his son. I know this instance would never occur, but this is what I thought of when the article mentions good and bad gods. This does not make sense to me. Just because a god is good or bad should not determine whether or not one would choose to worship them.
It just so happens that God is a good god, and Abraham acts in the way he does, basically, because he believes in God and wants to please him. This can also be considered piety in Socrates view presented in Platos “The Last Days of Socrates.” Socrates states that one pleases the gods because they are pious. Kierkegaard agrees with Socrates when Sagi writes, “Kierkegaard hence chooses horn (b) [did God command x because it was it is moral], which assumes that morality is intrinsically valid and independent of God and, for this reason, the good God will command it.”(Sagi, pg. 93/4). In the case of Abraham, he sacrifices his son because it is pious, and it would have pleased God. This would have made sense to Socrates if he had read it, but Euthyphro would have disagreed. Euthyphro believed the horn a of Kierkegaards view that stated that Abrahams action was pious because God commanded it. In this aspect, I would have to disagree with Socrates. If God commanded it because it was pious, or moral, then he is suggesting that murder is an acceptable action. This version of the first approach mentioned also contradicts Kierkegaards view that he presents in “Fear and Trembling.” Sagi writes, interpreting Kierkegaard, that Abraham is acting upon his judgement and worship of God, and morality plays no role in his actions.
The second version of this first approach is stated by J. Donnelly, who further interpreted Kierkegaards thought. Donnelly states, “one ought to obey the mandates of God in all situations, however demanding.”(Sagi, pg. 86). By this, it is ones moral duty to obey God and all of his commands no matter how outrageous or unethical. This version could describe why Abraham decided to sacrifice his son. Abraham, basically, has to do what he has to do in order to satisfy himself. Abraham would not have been satisfied with himself unless he followed God and all of his commands, therefore, deciding to sacrifice his son.
This version also makes sense, but also has its flaws. I do not, personally, agree with this version or approach. If I was in Abrahams position, I would not have sacrificed my son just because a higher being told me to. In the Book of Genesis it is written, “God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.””(Genesis, 22.1-22.2). Following this passage is Abraham going to the mountain with Isaac, unaware that he is to be sacrificed. In these two verses, God just tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. There is no consequence presented
The Problem
Some might argue that this is a very different story. This is not true, but it can nevertheless be seen as an attempt by the Biblical author, who was very much influenced by the traditions of the Jewish prophet Hisham.
A key point of contention about the Genesis story was as to why the Book of Genesis did not mention Abraham in Genesis 2:31-31 and to the various events described in the events that followed.
Some writers have, for instance, given examples of events in which no matter what sort of events the author gives refer to the event in the Book of Genesis.
The writer of Genesis was not, however, as a literalist on this point.
If we look at Adam and Eve’s relationship, we find that he did not have any relationship with them.
We find that when it comes to other important events, the author can also say that the author knew what was going to happen.
As a matter of fact, the creator did, for some reason, know what they would’ve done in the event of the Flood.
In fact, when Noah says, “The flood will overtake the world” ( Genesis 25:19), his answer is that we were not given the opportunity to prepare for the Flood.
A similar situation occurs in the Book of Daniel.
As we say, Daniel is not literally a literalist. Daniel is something that was written by God not according to scripture. We do not have a literalist on our side.
This is not to say that we are not given the opportunity to prepare for the Flood.
In fact, we have plenty of examples of “justification.”
We all have this notion that our “justification” consists in knowing the meaning of the words in the Bible.
As a matter of fact, this is what is taught in Genesis 24.
Even more telling is that of Daniel, who says, “To me in the day is given, and to my Lord the King, and the Holy Priest is to me”:
“But to Israel I say to them which do not know the commandments of God, for I will call them unto my name, and I will judge them all for good.” ( Daniel 6:18-19; Isaiah 34:4-13).
And in Isaiah 66:30-31, Isaiah states, “This is the day that all of you who know the commandments of God will be called to their righteousness; but the days of the covenant in which they are to be called unto the glory.” (Isaiah 100: