The Sacrifice: Silly Existentialists

Because I am somehow struggling to really understand Kierkegaard and the crazy existentialists the second time around (and because I'm too lazy to blog something original), I thought I'd post this nice little paper circa my Freshman year of college, a time during which I seemed to have a better understanding of them.

Abraham is commonly believed to be the Father of Faith, a highly esteemed follower of God, among believers of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, on a universal level, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, is nothing short of murder. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, the narrator Johannes de silentio makes light of the situation, seeking justification and understanding for Abraham’s actions. Throughout the text, Johannes notes that Abraham is a revered biblical figure because of his ability to rise above the universal good through a “teleological suspension of the ethical” (85). He also finds that Abraham is a “knight of faith” (75), one who accepts something as impossible but also absurdly believes it to be possible under God. This paradox lies in the fact that Abraham is willing to sacrifice Isaac but also fully believes that God will not take his son. This belief depicts that the ethics of religion lie in the “strength of the absurd” (75). The reason behind the absurdity is Abraham’s unyielding faith. However, the concept of Abraham’s faith in the text is ambiguous and paradoxical. It is not understood, and thus, a weak defense. Due to the fact that the main opposing argument in Abraham’s defense is his faith, Abraham is not justified in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

As a preface to my objection, I will explain the importance of universal law. According to the book, “The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which can be put from another point of view by saying that it applies at every moment” (83). There are moral principles that all people in a community share and should therefore dictate the actions of the individuals within the community. These unified moral principles become universal laws, which apply to everyone at every moment. All individuals must abide by the universal law, whereas only certain individuals believe in and embrace religious law. Religious law affects every individual differently, as was the case with Abraham, and is not comprehensible to all those who exist. If every individual firmly believed and carried out actions set by his own moral standings, the community of people would eventually fall apart. It is usually the case that the people of the land, who have a collective ethical standing, create governmental law. This law may not be perfect and may be relative to the era and country. However, once determined, it is perceivable and understood by nearly everyone in that society on an equal level. Murder, which imposes on another’s right to live, is commonly condemned.

Thus, I will argue that Abraham is guilty in his attempt to sacrifice his son because it is unjustified based on the universal law. Furthermore, I will explain certain acts of sacrifice that are condonable because of their outcomes. Abraham’s act is not condonable by that standard either. According to the text, Hegelian ethics supports the universal law, but also endorses the tragic hero. With the tragic hero, there are exceptions that absolve certain situations of sacrifice. It states that universal goodness entails actions that are carried out with a particular end purpose that benefits the universal whole. The highest good comes from being a tragic hero, one who benefits society through sacrifice. Although this sacrifice may entail death, it is beneficial to others overall and is therefore justified. For example, a member of the Roman State is entrusted with the “sword of judgment,” the responsibility to uphold the law. The law demands punishment for wrongdoing, even if the culprit is his own son. “Nobly will he hide his pain, but in the nation there will be not one, not even the son, who fails to admire the father” (87)… This is similar to the death sentence of modern day United States, in which the government must sacrifice the lives of certain individuals to preserve the safety of others and to appease those who seek justice because their loved ones were victims. As mentioned earlier, a tragic hero’s sacrifice is understood by every “noble soul in the world” (87). The people aware of the situation will sympathize for the tragic hero’s pain and shed tears of admiration. On the contrary, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac does not abide by the law of the land. Whereas the Roman’s execution of his son was lawful and served a greater, “noble” purpose, Abraham would be murdering his son for no understood reason. His supposed connection with God is the experience of a single individual that is by no means universal. The sacrifice is instead “private undertaking… an act of purely personal virtue” (88). The presumed demand from God is a trial; Abraham would be sacrificing Isaac for the sake of God because God seeks this proof of his faith. The act itself would be considered senseless murder based on the universal law. Few individuals would be able to fully sympathize with Abraham; many would likely dub him insane rather than praise him.

I will now provide a response to the objection by first portraying religious law as morally superior to universal law. Large groups of people in communities can become corrupt and create laws that are immoral. However, these depraved laws are still carried out. A conventional example would be the Nazis of Germany who believed that it was morally sound to rid the world of the Jews and other groups of people for “ethnic cleansing.” A large majority firmly believed in this cause, but ultimately, it is viewed to be a heinous crime. While universal law can be cruel and flawed, the “world of spirit” (57) is ideal and fair. Based on the religious law in the world if spirit, “only one who works gets bread, and only one who knows anguish finds rest, only one who descends to the underworld saves the loved one, only one who draws the knife gets Isaac” (57). It apparently transcends the universal world and its logic. According to the book, those who call Abraham insane for his paradoxical faith do not know of the world of spirit because they themselves do not have faith. These people, no matter how many, are blinded and do “not have the courage to understand [faith]” (105). Johannes states that, “Faith is a marvel, and yet no human being is excluded from it; for that in which all human life is united is passion, and faith is a passion” (95). Therefore, all people have the ability for faith and religious understanding. If everyone chose to follow God through faith, it would be another universal property, like the universal law of the land. Furthermore, those who choose to have faith have the potential to engage in the world of spirit, which is a step above the universal in righteousness. Among those who do embrace religion, faith is the apex of human goodness. It is the gateway to the world of spirit, and Abraham displayed the strongest faith among man with his potential sacrifice.

The response to the objection relies on what is understood about Abraham’s faith, which is more enduring than the duties of the tragic hero, before the sacrifice. Through his faith, Abraham is able to identify with the world of spirit. Although many cannot sympathize with Abraham, those who have also risen above the universal are able to. As mentioned in the objection, Abraham’s test of faith was a private matter between only himself and God that did not benefit the greater good. In contrast to that belief, it appears that the knowledge of this test eventually becomes a widespread and traditional lesson. Abraham becomes “God’s chosen” and a hero for all those who have faith and also seek the spiritual world. This lesson proves that Abraham is “the single individual, who, having been subordinate to the universal as the particular, now by means of the universal becomes that individual who, as the particular, stands in an absolute relation to the absolute” (85). This is known as “teleological suspension of the ethical,” in which one oversteps the ethical and reaches a higher telos (purpose) outside of it. Abraham reaches this higher goal and does so by resisting temptation. Johannes describes temptation as something that keeps a person from carrying out a duty. In Abraham’s case, the temptation is the ethical, which would prevent him from following God’s will. “But then what is the duty? For the duty is precisely the expression of God’s will” (88). Abraham can only carry out this sacrifice if he loves Isaac with all his soul “for it is indeed this love of Isaac that in its paradoxical opposition to his love of God makes his act a sacrifice” (101). If he did not love Isaac, it would be a meaningless sacrifice. This sacrifice is a far more difficult duty than the one in which the tragic hero engages. The tragic hero’s struggle ends because he makes the infinite movement and becomes safe in the universal. He is supported and understood by most others in society. The knight of faith, however, is under constant trial and “can turn back in repentance to the universal at any moment, and this possibility can just as well be a temptation as the truth” (105). He is always tempted to turn to the universal and cannot receive enlightenment from anyone else, for no one can truly identify with his task. This makes his sacrifice more powerful and accomplished, because he is abiding by the supreme ethics of the world of spirit.

My next objection suggests that Abraham’s faith is not human passion, but fear and trembling. In addition, I will question God’s benevolence because of his demand from Abraham. The only God who is worthy of worship is one who is benevolent and loving. An individual’s faith in an evil or cruel God does not have much value. If God were completely benevolent, it does not seem likely that he would demand Abraham to murder the one he loved most, Isaac, through whom Abraham would allegedly achieve greatness in the world. Although we do not understand Abraham’s mental state as he went through with the sacrifice, it is likely that anyone in his place would be devastated. Johannes states, “What is left out of the Abraham story is anguish; for while I am under no obligation to money, to a son the father has the highest and most sacred of obligations” (58). In addition, God is not straightforward with Abraham. He finally provides Abraham with a son and the promise that his son will achieve greatness, and then asks for his son to be sacrificed. Overall, this trial from God seems confusing and unfair. He is asking Abraham to readily risk the one whom he loves most as a mere test of faith. God does not appear to be completely benevolent because of this demand. Thus, even though it was God who commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham would still not be justified because he is following a seemingly cruel God. His faith is not worth anything in this case. Thus, it seems as if Abraham succumbs to this duty because he is fearful of the Lord. Johannes says, “If it should fall to my lot to speak of him, I would begin by showing what a devout and God-fearing man Abraham was” (61)… This fear of God would not be considered an admirable or commendable reason for the sacrifice. Yet, this need to fear God is mentioned in both Fear and Trembling and in the Bible. According to the Bible’s passage of Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV), one must “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” Aforementioned, there is no direct “good purpose” that comes from the sacrifice of Isaac. In regards to the biblical passage, it follows that Abraham engages in fear and trembling for the purpose of solely proving his faith to strengthen his bond with God. Ideally, one should desire to fulfill faithful duties freely and happily, not through fear.

The response to the objection is that God can contrarily be viewed as very much benevolent, with a specific purpose for his trial. This purpose, which demands Abraham’s faith, justifies Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. If God is indeed benevolent, he is worthy of Abraham’s faith and it was right of Abraham to abide by God’s command. It is assumed that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, already knows all there is to know about the people on earth, including their level of faith. Therefore, God does not need to test Abraham for God’s sake, but for Abraham to realize his own level of faith because “greater than all was Abraham, great with that power whose strength is powerlessness” (50). There is an entire chapter in the book that applauds Abraham, titled “Speech in Praise of Abraham,” from which the previous quote was taken. Johannes and religious individuals alike exalt Abraham as an exceptional believer. Although he would have been condemned at the time by those around him, he was soon after proclaimed a hero and exemplar because his faith. It may have been God’s will that Abraham realize this about himself—that he is set apart from others as the Father of Faith. This would be akin to God praising Abraham and allowing him to see that he is an honorable follower. Another defense for God’s benevolence and the necessity of faith is the end result of his demand. Abraham’s paradoxical view on the issue of Isaac—that he would have to sacrifice Isaac, but not actually give him up—parallels with the actual conclusion of his act. Isaac was not murdered and taken away from Abraham, but spared. This proves that God’s trial was simply that: a trial for Abraham’s sake, and not a cruel and devastating demand. It was not an arbitrary test, but one that came about when God knew was appropriate. God and Abraham maintained a close, working relationship through which God directly communicated with Abraham. Through this relationship, Abraham learned to trust that God was the father and that God would provide for him. Only after this foundation was built did God desire for Abraham to realize the importance of this intimate connection. Again, a greater good did come about from this trial that God presented, which may have been God’s good intention. Abraham set the standard for the faithful and became a model for every believer around the world, throughout the ages.

Although Abraham may be considered a heroic biblical figure to faithful believers, he remains an enigma to a majority of people, including everyday individuals, students, scholars, philosophers, and atheists. On a realistic and logical level, most people are unable to identity with Abraham and cannot condone his readiness to sacrifice his son. Furthermore, Abraham’s faith is so paradoxical that “it cannot be thought” (85) and lies on the strength of the absurd. Johannes commends Abraham’s faith, but fails to fully comprehend him and says, “Thus while Abraham arouses my admiration, he also appalls me” (89). The argument of faith, especially in the sense that Abraham believed he would both sacrifice and keep Isaac, is inconclusive and perplexing to everyone besides God and Abraham. The result of the sacrifice was a small miracle that occurred in that unique situation, but would prove to be detrimental to any others who believe it is okay to mimic the situation to strengthen their faith. In simple terms, a modern day father willing to murder his son for a supposedly higher purpose unbeknownst to others would be considered a criminal in almost all societies across the world, whether he actually has that religious calling or not. He would be disrupting the judiciary system, made by the people for the people, which ultimately overrides the individual.