Was it ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, from Eliezer,from Isaac?
Kierkegaard through JD straightaway states the issues that should be taken into account in order to understand what this problem in the form of a question entails: "If there is no concealment that has its rationale in the single individual as the particular being higher than the universal, then Abraham's conduct is indefensible, for he disregarded the ethical intermediary forums. If there is such a concealment, however, then we are at the paradox, which cannot be mediated because it is due precisely to the single individual as the particular being higher than the universal, but the universal is precisely the mediation". Is Abraham violating his ethical duty by which he is expected to explain the reasons for his action (whether he is correct or no in taking such action) in which case by not fulfilling his duty for disclosure demanded by the ethical he would be following an aesthetic mode of living? If, on the other hand, the concealment is due to the single individual transcending the ethical then the "rationale" for Abraham's action cannot be communicated intelligibly, cannot be mediated, is at bottom irrational and not capable of universalizability. Herein lies the paradox.
In the words of JD: "Ethics demands disclosure, (but) it cannot be denied that secrecy and silence actually makes for greatness in a person precisely because they are qualifications of inwardness." If the command to kill Isaac comes directly from God, and therefore not mediated by the universal (which indeed it couldn't be, for it would be murder ethically speaking), then is Abraham's silence "in the demon's snare" mired in self-pity and unbridled egotism? How are we the reader supposed to understand the paradox of silence that can at once be demonism and the deity in communication with the single individual possessing true inwardness. These are the questions which K seeks to elucidate.
The following words of JD I take to be K's "the path I have to take is to carry concealment dialectically through esthetics and ethics, for the point is to take esthetic concealment and the paradox appear in their absolute dissimilarity" and in a discussion of examples from dramas: "esthetics demanded concealment and awarded it, ethics demanded disclosure and punished it."
The first of the poetic personages which JD relates in order to compare with the story of Abraham, taken from Aristotle, the bridegroom's impending marriage is predicted by the augers to lead to misfortune. Should he then keep silent and get married so as not to cause pain for the bride, at least for a while, or keep silent and not get married thus destroying the relationship, or else speak which would cause unhappiness. In choosing between the esthetic and the ethical, The choice calling for disclosure would be out of a concern for the ethical. So the bridegroom's dilemma is between the esthetic and the ethical. What does this have to do with Abraham? "if heaven had not been proclaimed (to the bridegroom) through an augur quite privately, in an altogether private relationship to him, then we are at the paradox in which he could not speak...his silence would not be due to his wanting to place himself as the single individual in an absolute relation to the universal but to his having been placed as the single individual in an absolute relation to the absolute."
So K's answer to Problem three is yes because Abraham's silence is different from the bridgroom's (as well as the other poetic personages) in that it is concealment arising out of a one-to-one relationship with the absolute. Morally, it is one thing to lead an exemplary, ethical life that is externally commendable, it is another thing for the lone individual in the self's relation to God.
@Leo, I had also thought that the right answer for this question was a yes. Similarly to what Oscar said in class I thought of the question not as whether or not the act itself (sacrificing/killing Abraham) was ethically defensible (which is not) but the fact that Abraham concealed his understanding of what was required for him to do. Therefore, I thought that concealing his understanding was ethical defensible because Abraham had this direct communication with God. God representing the ultimate power had the right to overthrow any ethical law. For example the bible states that one of God's commandments is "Thou shall not kill", however, since in this occasion it is God who is telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac, Abraham does not have to follow this command. I thought that if he would have not concealed his understanding, his duty to God would have been tempted by either Sarah, Elizer or Isssac himself. None of them would have understood Abraham and might have persuaded to act otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHowever, now I see how the answer can be a no. JDS through the story of the man and the woman who are in love and keep their love in secret after the woman is married to another man, states that what is ethical is the truth. Abraham concealed his understanding not because it was ethical, what is hidden is not ethical, but because in his faith, Abraham believed by virtue of the absurd, that God will command him otherwise.
JdS seems to equate the ethical with common sensical ethics, at least this is how I understood his usage the term; if someone has another take on it please let me know. The ethical is understood as an established, though partially (maybe mostly) unwritten, set of laws dictated by human reason synthesized with the word of God (I think). In this sense, no, Abraham’s concealing was not ethical because insofar as it is able to be translated into the ethical, it contradicts the ethical. But in this case, doing what is ethical (telling the truth), would most likely amount to the incapability of Abraham to complete the task assigned to him by God (it is likely that Isaac would have run away or Sarah would have prevented the act). If we are to assume that the actual word of God (the supreme being) is supreme, and I think that is necessarily so, we must admit that His orders are to be followed above all other imperatives. It is for this reason that it was the right choice for Abraham to conceal this from Sarah, Eliezer, and Isaac. Perhaps it is technically true that this act of concealing was not ethical, but it was the right act. What is ethical is only valuable insofar as it is right; typically the two are synonymous, but here is a supernatural case. In this case the concealment was merely unethical.
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought answer to Problem III is yes but after a discussion in the class I realized that it's answer is NO. It was not ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, Eliezer, or Isaac. Abraham is not ordinary individual like us he is chosen by God and higher than the universe. Therefore, his act is considered as right act but his concealment is unethical(as Billy have mentioned above). Moreover, for Abraham it is unnecessary to involve other individuals while he was following God's command. At that time he was only thinking about God and fulfilling his demand. His priority was to sacrifice Issac in the name of God without doubt.
ReplyDelete@Billy --
ReplyDeleteIn terms of this quote from your post:
"If we are to assume that the actual word of God (the supreme being) is supreme, and I think that is necessarily so, we must admit that His orders are to be followed above all other imperatives."
I think we might want to replace the word "supreme" with "absolute" -- at least to keep the semantics simple.
Then, since we have this absolute duty -- a duty that supersedes the universal duties, or conventional ethics -- it becomes a little more compelling, I would think, in defining the act.
I would think it might be important to describe the act and relationship rather than ascribing attributes or properties to God; if we do the latter, we're yet again trying to cognize and rationalize an unintelligible concept, namely that of god's nature directly.
Or am I conflating things?
It seems like a lot of the discussion about the ethical nature of concealment seems to be about the concealment in relation to the planned sacrifice of Isaac - whereas JdS seems to focus on ethical nature of concealment, alone. If the ethical is the universal/what can be expressed/etc., then concealing something must be unethical/ethically indefensible. It does make sense for Abraham to conceal his plan if he actually wants to successfully carry it out - but I think that's the answer to to a different question than the one JdS is asking. Also, with regard to what Billy was saying about the necessity of following God's orders above all other imperatives - we can recognize God as the source of the ethical, but at the same time allow that his demands are not ethical (i.e. transcend/do not correspond to the ethical), if for no other reason then that they are not universal. So, while one might say that it was the right choice/it made common sense for Abraham to conceal his plan, that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the concealment was ethical. Hope that made sense.
ReplyDeleteJust so we’re extra clear, we’ve already agreed that the answers to the first problem (is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?) and the second problem (is there an absolute duty to God?) are both yes, then the answer to the third problem should be clear. But, it’s framed in such a way in that it seems to ask two questions: (1) in the realm of the ethical, the universal, is an act of concealment unethical? And (2) in the realm of the absolute, are actions to be judged in the context of the ethical?
ReplyDeleteAbraham’s actions, both the sacrifice and the concealment, are absolved due to the teleological suspension of the ethical resulting from his absolute duty to God. And it is this unethical act of concealment that signifies the second movement of faith. Or as JdS puts it, “Abraham cannot speak, for he cannot say that which would explain everything (i.e. so it is intelligible), that it is a trial, of a sort mind you, in which the ethical is the temptation. Anyone so situated is an emigrant from the sphere of the universal.” (Therefore the third problem asks a trick question. And I think I’m merely echoing what’s been stated so far. My apologies.)
@Ravi
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about God's request transcending the ethical as we understand it -- even if we accept God to be the source OF the ethical -- seems right on point and exactly how I envision things.
I think, however, his silence DOES in fact have to with the ethical, to a degree, in that it does run contrary to conventional ethical wisdom.
It's for that reason that we can say this is silence was unethical in response to Problem III.
However -- because of that transcendence in relation to God and the absolute duty, the ethical nature of the act of silence is a moot point. The fact that God transcends the universal, the ethical, means that whether we called it an ethical or unethical decision is irrelevant.
Johannes is saying, in part, that silence is noble and courageous. The person who is silent is one who must bear his or her burden alone. The mission or the dilemma is between that person and God and so it must remain secret. To say a word would be to mix the divine with the human, which cannot occur on a divine mission. Being a true Knight of Faith means that you cannot have the luxury of consulting others, since others have no part in your mission. You cannot unburden yourself because that would cheapen the whole thing. You have transcended what is human and therefore do not need to consult with human law and human emotion. That is why Abraham could not tell his family, even his wife. Though they were involved in the situation, it was only on the human level. Sarah would have grieved over her son like any mother would, sure, but his quest transcended that.
ReplyDeleteYo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan pretty much completely, I think. With my previous post I think I was, more or less, trying to give my thoughts on the questions being asked. It seems like some of the differing opinions correspond to entirely different questions - i.e. a confusion between the ethical (in the sense the JdS or Kierkegaard means it), and 'common sense,' or a more colloquial type of ethics. And I think we can answer each question differently and all the answers might be right(though maybe not all concurrently and in the same situation). So, concealment can be unethical, concealment of an ineffable demand from God transcends the ethical (therefore not ethically defensible), and it makes sense that Abraham would have concealed his plan.