In Problem I of Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard addresses a biblical, paradoxical dilemma: why does Abraham abandon his ethical duty to his son and choose to kill him? More specifically, Kierkegaard explores Abraham’s “teleological suspension of the ethical.” Drawing upon the traditional notions of ethics from Hegel and Kant, Kierkegaard establishes that the ethical is the universal, in which the individual has a telos (end or purpose) in the universal (46). The ethical describes the rational and normative aspects of morality that all people should abide by, for example, how Kant’s Categorical Imperative sets up rational, universal maxims. Under this traditional notion, all actions should strive towards the universal as their end or purpose. Kierkegaard uses Abraham’s conflict between his duty to his son (his ethical duty) and to God (his duty to his faith) to underline the paradox of faith. By critiquing the objectivism of the ethical and through the paradox of faith, Kierkegaard attempts to reestablish the value of faith – faith being outside of reason.
In order to explain the paradox of faith, Kierkegaard highlights Abraham’s conflict. In the story of Abraham, Isaac represents Abraham’s ethical duty – that a father should love his son more than himself (49). Why does Abraham suspend his ethical duty? Abraham wishes to express his duty to God in order to prove his faith. Since Abraham’s telos lies in the universal, he must conform to it (and thus save his son) in order to act morally. However, if he wishes to prove his faith and to act as an individual, he is guilty of acting immorally (53-54). Abraham’s dilemma is a paradox of faith – his telos (which lies in the universal) and faith (which is outside of the universal) are in opposition. Kierkegaard describes that faith is a paradox because “the single individual is higher than the universal.” In other words, Abraham is placing his single individual relationship with the divine above his ethical duty to his son.
This paradox, Kierkegaard argues, cannot be mediated and is “inexplicable” (58). Unlike Hegel’s notion of faith, which is part of reason and knowledge, Kierkegaard’s notion of faith is not reducible to rational or conceptual ideas. Abraham’s duty to God cannot be mediated on ethical grounds because he is acting as a single individual rather than in the realm of universals. Abraham is acting outside rationality. Kierkegaard puts Abraham’s actions into perspective: Abraham is “either a murder or we are at the paradox that is higher than all mediations” (54). If Hegel is correct and the ethical is the universal, Abraham becomes lost because he remains guilty of violating his ethical duty and transforms into a murderer (58). Kierkegaard might be suggesting that we must conceive of an ultimate human goal or telos that is beyond the universal or what is rational, stressing the value of singular purposes each single individual may have.
Kierkegaard concludes that we can only understand Abraham’s dilemma as a paradox. Kierkegaard is emphasizing that faith cannot be merely an expression of the ethical as Hegel would argue. In order to acknowledge Abraham as the “father of faith,” we must have a notion that is above the ethical and that emphasizes the individual (58). However, how can we think of a non-rational (quite absurd notion) existing beyond what is rational? Although Kierkegaard is showing his readers the value of faith, Abraham’s actions still remain questionable. It seems that Kierkegaard believes that Abraham’s actions are not punishable because they are beyond rationality. Should a person's duty to God, the one-on-one relationship between a person and the divine, become his or her telos? This idea Kierkegaard may be proposing in this section is quite radical. Abraham must believe that his faith to God is stronger or more important than his duty to his son – not only a paradoxical statement, but peculiar and selfish.
This point becomes more vivid when Kierkegaard’s paradox of faith is applied to the Doomsday Killer in the Showtime series Dexter. The Doomsday Killer is carrying out his duty to God to signal the end of the world by reenacting biblical stories of the second coming, which leads to the murder of several innocent people. His accomplice is convinced that he must assist in these murderous reenactments to prove his faith to God. However, by carrying out their duty to God, they are suspending themselves from the ethical – the universal responsibility for citizens to obey society's laws against murder. Are these actions justified since they are what lie in faith, what is beyond the rational? Although sensational fiction, the Doomsday Killer highlights that there is perspectivism in religion (and the single individual) that can lead to radicalism if there is no rationalizing force present to judge our actions.
Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, ed. C. Stephen Walsh and Sylvia Walsh (Cambridge): Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521612691.
