Some thoughts on Kierkegaard.

This is an old response paper to Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling which I turned in to an existentialism class. The question was what I thought about Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Did I think it was moral?

Johannes de Silentio is arguing from a Kantian/Hegelian ethical perspective which offers universal good for the whole of a society as the ultimate decisive factor in an ethical decision. According to that paradigm, when Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, he is not acting for a universal good. Rather he is acting on the strength of the absurd, believing that Isaac will be restored, or he is infinitely resigned to life without Isaac. Normally in ancient stories concerning human sacrifice, there is an ethical consideration, and pains are made to ensure the social acceptability of the sacrifice. The story of Agamemnon, for instance, also involves the sacrifice of an offspring. However, in this case the sacrifice is made for a very specific purpose, which will benefit the nation as a whole. In sacrificing his daughter, he achieves the most good for the most people at the expense of the self and thus exemplifies the Hegelian model. In Agamemnon’s story, there is a justifiable teleological suspension of ethics. For Abraham however, there is no greater good to appeal to, simply God’s whim. Thus there are two possibilities for Abraham’s actions. Either Abraham is above Ethical considerations, in which case God can arbitrarily change morality, or he is below them in the realm of pure sensuality.
In response, I would say that neither God nor Abraham are functioning upon a Hegelian paradigm of ethics, and so long as such is the premise, any conclusions will be inconclusive, as they are in Fear and Trembling. It seems that De Silentio is working from a false premise, because he is not accepting the full relationship which Abraham and God have established at this point. God has proven His faithfulness to Abraham time and time again. Thus Abraham had sufficient faith to believe that God will still keep His promise despite all evidence to the contrary. In this sense, Abraham does indeed rely upon the strength of the absurd, however this need not be a mystifying thing. God has revealed His character to Abraham to be such, and this revelation is the determining factor in Abraham's actions, not any ethical concerns (Hegelian or no) which, in Abraham's view, would ultimately be worthless when compared to God's fulfilling of His morality.
Furthermore, up until this point in God's history, He has not dictated a definitive morality in such terms as "Thou shalt not, etc." (except, of course, the command concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). The commandments came with Moses, who is descended from Abraham, and The Law came with the Levitical priesthood after the Israelites return from Egypt. Concerning sacrifice, the prime story which Abraham may have had access to would have been the story of Cain and Abel. Abel made sacrifice which was pleasing to God because of His faith and devotion to God. Cain was only found in disfavor because his heart was wicked with jealousy and rage. Thus, Abraham had learned to make sacrifice with joy.
For Abraham, not only is God worthy of the sacrifice of Isaac, but He also keeps His promises. These would have been Abraham's motives, and these would have been sufficient for Abraham to do what he did. He had no concern for social or ethical considerations, and therefore any attempt to understand what he did along those lines will be, as they were for Silentio, inconclusive.