Kierkegaard's "Either/Or"

In Kierkegaard's Either/Or, "A" promotes an aesthetic lifestyle, stating that boredom is the source of all evil and the result of the aesthetic lifestyle being difficult to achieve. Johannes, in Diary of the Seducer, explains how to increase the aesthetic pleasure by avoiding boredom. He describes his slow and calculated seduction of Cordelia. After succeeding, he manipulates Cordelia into breaking off the engagement and then later, return to him. At that point he leaves her in order to avoid potential boredom. Judge William objects to the aesthetic lifestyle and believes an ethical life is better. The Judge defends marriage by pointing out that only a coward would avoid the repetition of a long term relationship. The romantic love of marriage is actually aesthetic and the highest form of romantic love. The Judge also reasons that choices made with the limitations of ethics are more significant than those made purely for aesthetics and so his choices mean more to him than Johannes or A's.

In regards to the value of opinions made from an ethical standpoint, the Judge's reason is very sound. Decisions with limitations are much more difficult to make and mean much more to the individual who makes the choices. The value of the choices makes the ethical lifestyle more valuable than the aesthetic one, but this only extends to individuals who believe in ethical lifestyles. Those who do not value ethics will not find higher value in making ethical decisions. His reasoning is also sound when he states that repetition, as in a marriage, is a cowardly thing to avoid because the true love experienced in a long term relationship is more aesthetic than that of an imaginary one. However, once again, this varies from person to person. If one does not value or desire long term relationships than they will not find increased aesthetics in pursuing one. The Judge's reasoning is correct, but with limitations.

His reasoning is flawed because it cannot be extended to every individual. Some people do not and will never value other humans. That does not mean that their life lacks aesthetics or value. Living an ethic lifestyle would require some individuals to act against who they truly are and thus they would not be living a life that they value. The ethical decisions are only valued by those who believe in ethical decisions, thus an ethical lifestyle cannot be promoted to those who desire an aesthetic one because by choosing an aesthetic life, they clearly do not hold fast to ethical values.

If living an ethical lifestyle truly increased the aesthetics of one's life, than those who chose the aesthetic lifestyle would have already discovered the increased aesthetics of moral decisions, since they are living their life purely for aesthetic enjoyment. It is also unlikely that one living an aesthetic lifestyle did not grow up making ethical decisions and thus willingly made the choice to turn away from that as they aged. If those following the aesthetic lifestyle found their life truly more valuable through ethical decisions than they would not be attempting to live an aesthetic life.

Another issue with this line of thinking is the fluidity of ethics. Ethics changes throughout time and between individuals. Some people who claim to live ethical lives can use their ethics to justify wrongdoing. Are their life choices truly more valuable than that of those who are choosing what they want to do without justification? In a perfect world, one could live a very valuable life following ethics, but it is simply too easy to be lead astray by doing what one believes is "right" and/or justifying what is clearly wrong.

In Fear and Trembling, some of the shortcomings of the Judge's views are identified. In the four retellings of the story of Abraham and Isaac, Kierkegaard explores the differences between ethical and aesthetic reasonings. He promotes the teleological suspension of the ethical in order for individuals to be able to act with the end in mind instead of purely making an ethical decision. This section of Either/Or points out the downfalls of black and white ethical lifestyles. Abraham proves his faith in God by believing that God would not allow Isaac to die and decides to proceed with killing Isaac. Abraham knew that he was ethically obligated to not kill Isaac, but suspended this belief in order to act in accordance to his personal faith and thus, he pleased God. This section addresses the potential for blindly following ethics if one attempts to live an ethical life.

This argument is logically sound only in regards to the suspension of ethics, because rigid ethics frequently lead to negative outcomes. If a man was robbing a bank at gunpoint, ethics would say that killing the man is wrong, but if the man then shoots five people, the murdering of the gunman would have been the greater good because it would have spared the lives of the five innocent people. The person choosing to shoot the gunman would have teleologically suspended his ethics in order to commit the murder because ethically murder is wrong. It could be argued that he is not suspending his ethics as much as allowing his ethics to be fluid when presented with different situations, however, this is more of a linguistic difference rather than two different concepts.

However, it seems that Kierkegaard is only defending teleologically suspending ethics in ethical-religious conflicts and that he would not extend it to conflicts of personal value. Believing in suspending ethics only in religious-ethical conflicts is far less sound. Following God's word blindly is just as dangerous as following ethics blindly. This concept of valuing the relationship with God above that of general well-being could have frightening consequences within society. Technically, the bible advocates murdering children who disrespect their parents, could someone with the religious viewpoint teleologically suspend their ethics in order to murder disobedient children? If God's word was followed with no regard to ethics, would there be any survivors? Not only is the bible chock full of reasons to murder, there are also the "miracles" where God makes contact with an individual. How many wars have been fought on behalf of God? How many children have been murdered?

While ethics cannot be followed rigidly, they present a far less concerning problem than following God's word over societal ethics. There would be little preventing humans from wiping out entire nations on the mere notion that God told them to. A world where God trumps ethics is one that should be feared rather than desired.