How does the individual assure himself that he is justified? In Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Abraham, found in a paradox between two ethical duties, is confronted with this question. He has ethical duties to be faithful to God and also to his son, Isaac. He believes that God demands him to sacrifice Isaac. But, Abraham, firmly adhering to his faith, submitted to what he believed was the will of God. By using his perspective and that of his alternative guise, Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard concentrates on the story of Abraham in such a way that his audience must choose between two extremes. Either Abraham is insane or he is justified in saying he will kill Isaac.
Is Abraham's decision to sacrifice Isaac faith or murder? According to Kierkegaard, an action is "to be judged by the outcome (Kierkegaard, 91)." One has to know the whole story before choosing a side to support. In Abraham's story, Isaac is not sacrificed. God appears to Abraham and tells him that he can sacrifice an animal instead of his son. In continuation, Kierkegaard shows that a hero, whom has become a skándalon to his generation and is aware that he is in the middle of an incomprehensible paradox, will cry out defiantly to his contemporaries, "The future will show I was right (Kierkegaard, 91)." According to Kierkegaard, those who talk and think like him live secure in their existence. They have a solid position because they understand that everything can only be judged by the end result. These people can be seen as sure prospects in a well-ordered state. "Their lifework is to judge the great, to judge them according to the outcome (Kierkegaard, 91)."
Surely a man who possesses a little erectior ingenii is justified in his actions (...
... middle of paper ...
... he is not justified by anything universal, but precisely by being a single individual and having faith, over ethics, in God.
In conclusion, Abraham is shown to be justified; he is not a murderer. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard wrote that "the future will show I was right (Kierkegaard, 91)." Well, Abraham was proven to be right by the result. He does not kill Isaac; he is not insane. Trying to see the whole picture, one can see that Abraham's story is a consolation. It is not about Abraham. Rather, it is about God and forgetting about Abraham so one can see God. Remember, Kierkegaard shows that faith is above the universal. This is the idea that the reader can ponder. Still, people are always allowed to have their own opinions. However, Kierkegaard tries to show that nobody can judge another until the result can be seen. The end does justify the means.
... from previous experiences and bases future decisions on what they have experienced. When a person makes a decision that isn’t justified, they unknowingly change how they view future problems. If the decision has not been based in truth, it allows them a certain amount of unearned freedom to make wrong decisions, as opposed to when one make a proper decisions. It is crucial that every decision made is justified in order to keep their moral compass steady and to make the proper decisions when the choice is hard.
This is a profound moral question that challenges the conscience of the reader of this episode, just as much as it once challenged my heart and mind. There are those who can appreciate my dilemma, and so endorse my attitude, and there are others who will be ready to condemn me for refusing to ease the last moment of a repentant murderer. (Wiesenthal 12)
Sometimes in life there are instances in which and individual must make a decision that will question their moral fiber. These instances could vary from whether or not to help others in need, decide whether an action is right or wrong or even when deciding who should live and who must die. How does one logically reason to an ethnical conclusion to these situations?
“One of the primes objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief to the immediate victims of the criminal punished.” (Mencken), this quote plays on his point that the taking of a life can be defended and even promoted in a search for justice; Mencken likes to refer to this “need” for revenge as ketharsis. Although execution could be misconstrued as a relief for the victims, it in fact draws a line for criminals who commit the most haneous of crimes. Even this, however, does not seem to justify taking a life. The “ultimate punishment” should not be for man to decide. We do not know enough about death and the possibilities of afterlife to administer executions. Thompson states, “After much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn’t.” This supports that it is impossible for man to be able to decipher who is to live or die because we really are not even positive what life is. If we have grey areas between what is right and wrong how can we adequately decide the fate of
Capital Punishment was an important part of the justice system of Old Testament Israel. At this time, the Christian ethic towards Capital Punishment was that it was right. Death was the result of people committing serious civil crimes like murder and rape. This was also in place for crimes against God’s sanctity, like false prophecy and witchcraft. There were procedures that were put in place to stop Capital Punishment and God occasionally spared lives of people whose behaviours would have meant death.
... found justice for the victim who lost their lives at the hand of a criminal. The critics of capital punishment argue that the government over reached it authority pertaining to the death penalty and have sought to judge in God stead. However, the advocates of capital punishment argue that many nations whether modern or ancient has used capital punishment as a method of justice. This author think that capital murder is a debatable issue that should always be approach with caution.
There are many scriptural references that make the point that the murderer must be punished. Nevertheless, biblical tradition is also replete with reminders that vengeance belongs to the Lord and that he enjoins the qualities of compassion and forgiveness on those believers in the biblical revelation of God. (Amo...
In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, the concept of the Knight of Faith is an exalted one, a unique title awarded to those whose devotion to God goes far beyond what is even comprehensible or expected for the average man, who has an aesthetic or ethical life. We are told by Kierkegaard that this Knight of Faith, when in a situation where resignation appears to be the only solution to a problem, puts his faith in what appears to be the absurd, and believes that the solution that he desires lies in God. This fuels his faith, and makes him better than the aesthetic man, who simply abandons or ignores the problem, or the ethical man, the Knight of Infinite Resignation, who accepts the problem and resigns himself to a life of despair. The Knight of Faith exists as a shining beacon of devotion to the will of God, and, according to Kierkegaard, there exist only two known examples of the Knight of Faith: Abraham, and Mary. These exemplary figures in history put their faith in God, and believed that God would provide a solution to their problems. This unconditional faith in their creator is supposed to be inspirational, and in a sense, make the reader feel incredibly pitiful and resentful of their own wavering faith. In the following paragraphs, I aim to argue that a moment of absolute faithlessness can prove to be just as powerful as a moment of pure faith, and that Mary and Abraham serve as God-given examples of an absolute faith that is inaccessible to all but a few humans who serve very specific purposes in this world. Finally, I will propose a different mode of existence, one in which a man’s free will allows him to find joy in whatever God provides for him.
...ther hand, what about an innocent person getting killed? Can we, as mere human's sentence another human being to death? In the end my feelings go with my religion. In a famous case in the Talmud, which surprisingly enough is cited in Black's book, the death penalty is discussed.
Capital punishment is a very touchy subject for most. Do you believe someone should have their life taken from them for doing a wrong act? Is it moral or not? I’m going to explain to you how I feel the three philosophers, James, Ayer, and Strawson, would view capital punishment.
...ecision making process that takes place when ethical dilemmas arise, but that it also seems refreshing as it takes us back to a time when society knew right from wrong and chose right. However, we also feel that beings capable of reason do not, as a whole, follow inherent duties. They are not always subject to imperatives which push them to act in the correct manner regardless of personal gain, or in the appropriate manner for personal gain.
the way in which we come to find out what actions are right and which
The concern of the death penalty not only pertains to social problems, but also to biblical aspects as well. Walter Berns states many passages from the Bible that support the death penalty, but after careful research he determines that the passages can be interpreted in many different ways. To read this passage from Genesis someone might think that the death penalty is suppo...
While some hold that a strict reading of certain texts forbids executions, others point to various verses of the New Testament which seem to endorse the death penalty 's use. Many read the Passion narratives in the Gospels as a condemnation of capital punishment because of the execution of Jesus, whom Christians regard as innocent and an example of executing the innocent. Not only Christians believed that, also the Catholics believed that capital punishment is wrong. In an article called “On Cruelty,” the author talks about it is wrong to have capital punishment, but it is not wrong at the same time if the murderer keeps killing
Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female sinner (John 8:3 - 8:11) who was supposed to be stoned to death and saved by Christ saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. Jesus was not in fact censuring the right to kill the woman, according to the ancient law. Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this passage was not present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an unknown person (Religious Tolerance). Besides, the passage from Matthew 5:21-22 is supposed to condemn killing: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." These words implicate a person who kills out of anger, but is hardly applicable to cases where a person is murdered through a verdict of qualified