Status Updates From Kierkegaard's Ethic of Love...

Kierkegaard's objection to the church being an arm of the state is not just that, but also a desire to see people freed from authoritarian ecclesiastical control. The strength of divine command theory is that it transcends the established order, which must never be deified. Idenfication with the state for Kierkegaard is almost the greatest possible perversion of the faith.

To moral relativists, moral diversity proves that moral absolutism is false and that there is no single moral framework that is true for all humans. Harman attempts to root moral obligation in relativistic frameworks, but ultimately this too fails. Kierkegaard's divine command theory of obligation, however, means our obligation to love is rooted in an objective reality of God's command.

The view that treatment towards others is to be made with rational idea of utility (man as 'homo economicus') in mind is something Kierkegaard disagrees with, seeing the obligation to love the neighbour done even to those who offer no returns. In fact, momentary preferences cannot shape an enduring and central sense of self. If morality is founded on economics, then self-interest will rule above the good.

Grounding morality in social agreement that will offer rational maximisation is flawed, since it is inevitable that there will be those who will break this contract if it will maximise their utility, hypothetical agreements are not binding on individuals. It is also not clear that such a social agreement would even be fair, since not all are rational actors, nor equal in status or power

Grounding ethics in biology comes with the attempt to give Aristotelianism a scientific basis. Modern biology tells us what human nature is and which actions lead to fulfilment through being necessary goods. Kierkegaard is opposed to this, believing in a 'soul-making' ethic that is about refining moral character. Evolutionary naturalism struggles to produce an account of moral obligation that is universal

There are three secular alternatives, ethical naturalism, called evolutionary naturalism which believes objective obligations are explained by facts in the natural order rooted in biology, humanistic naturalism, which is rooted in human social interaction and ethical relativism, which rejects moral realism and denies the existence of an objective set of obligations

The author criticises Kierkegaard's view of the social order by claiming that it's inconsistent with himself as a thinker, because support for reform can be an expression of neighbour-love. Furthermore, Kierkegaard himself supports changes (like abolishing slavery) yet does not consider new ones. It is hypocritical, lastly, to claim love and then ignore concrete social reform for those that suffer

Kierkergaard expresses an egalitarianism, but socially remains somewhat conservative in that movements to get rid inequalities in the world are insignificant and merely an outer garment (criticism of 'limousine liberals'), which can often be a cheap and fake substitute for neighbour-love that never expresses itself in concrete ways and our social relations, furthermore, inequality will always be present

To the author, Kierkegaard does not see neighbour-love (a moral concern for all) as supplanting natural loves but transforming them. These special relations are not to be abolished but purged of 'selfishness'. The 'spirit's love' should be the foundation of every other expression of love.

Kant believed that we could not control our inclinations, therefore, neighbour-love is on a practical basis of what we do for others. But this is wrong, some emotions are immediate, but they may also arrive at immediacy through reflection and a taming of the passions. There are emotions that can be nurtured over time in the correct way. These are formed emotions.

Neighbour-love takes God as the 'middle-term', one construes the other on the basis of some distinguishing feature that is the ground of an emotion. If I love God unconditionally I cannot be indifferent to his creation, which construes others as part of God's object of love. If we care about what God cares about, then such a construal will indeed ground an emotion.

Emotion = 'concern-based construal'. Construal = 'seeing-as' = pictures seen in two different ways. 2 features of an emotion arise from this view, which is it has:

1) Intentional content, expressed in propositional form
2) The possibility to take as its intentional object something not the object of a belief (hoping/fearing possibilities that may not occur)

Construal require you care about what is being construed

Kierkegaard believes that neighbour-love isn't just an obligation to love others, but also to love oneself properly, and to help others love God, who is inseparable from the Good. The self's ultimate happiness is with this acquisition of moral goodness.

Further claims:

1) Self-love is universal (people can be selfish w/o loving themselves)
2) Not all self-love is proper
3) The right kind of love is neighbour-love

The obligation to love is not exercised by most people because of 'the world', which are dominant patterns of thinking and acting that shape human societies. There is an antithesis between the world and Christianity. Kierkegaard is worried apologists will change the nature of Christianity for public approval, and believes that those who truly love are scorned.

Kierkegaard describes a 'natural knowledge' of God, this is gained through human spiritual striving, and not philosophical. He identifies conscience as the place where this occurs. It is where the relationship between individual and God takes place. This natural knowledge of God is called the 'good' by philosophers, which reverses the Hegelian idea that religion is a less articulate way of expressing philosophy

The author thinks that Kierkegaard believes that the command for neighbour-love is general revelation, and not special, nor does it particularly have to be for Kierkegaard's ideas to work. Therefore, there are parallels between Christian and pagan moral law while the latter is defective in many respects. Kierkegaard calls universal moral obligations the 'universally-human',

The love commanded by God is linked in the most direct way to human fulfilment by securing human life against the opposite of happiness: despair. Tragic events do not cause despair, but reveal its inner presence in a person all along. Their identity is grounded in the temporal, they despair because they lack the eternal. Those that love others in an eternal sense, believes that his/her life is worthwhile/fulfilling

Kierkegaard argues that love grounded in divine authority liberates and frees from human oppression, commanded love provides the best opportunity for autonomy. The relation to God equalizes and humanizes all relationships among humans, without that, there is no protection against oppression. Part of this independence consists in freedom from reciprocation.

Kierkegaard maintains three goods are fostered by neighbour-love, and three counterpart evils this love protects against:

1) Continuity in loving, its counterpart the dimming of love over time
2) Autonomy linked to freedom, its counterpart dependence that can lead to oppression
3) Happiness over seeing one's life as worthwhile, counterpart leads to despair

Love as commanded is unchanging, secured against despair

The satisfying character of love is such that we ought not to require a command at all. Love is a duty only because of our fallenness. Life is not worth living without love. We gain happiness from pursuing the Good, which is not the world's reward. When we have learned to practise self-denial with respect to those goods that I naturally seek, I can be truly happy and understand where my deepest happiness lies.

Kierkegaard believes that God is love and love is the foundation of all that is valuable in human existence that makes God's commands such that they should be obeyed. God intends for us eternal happiness, so we should express our love in gratitude. It is not the compulsion of divine punishment, which is disciplinary and loving rather than forceful, that means we should obey

Kierkegaard takes issue with the Kantian view of morality which is connected to the Enlightenment view of autonomy which claims that there is no higher authority than human reason itself. Kant regards morality as self-legislation, which to Kierkegaard is arbitrary and cannot bind anyone, since those who give law may also repeal it. Kierkegaard makes further arguments to show that obligation relies on divine authority

For Kierkegaard, love for the neighbour is commanded, and its status as a serious moral duty grounded in law depends on it being commanded. Kierkegaard is committed to a divine command theory of obligation. That love is commanded distinguishes Christian love from normal human love. The unspoiled pagan believes love should be spontaneous, the spoiled pagan believes it can be a duty without God's command.

The divine command theory of moral obligation is not intended as an account of the whole of ethics but only of obligation. Moral obligations are ultimate in the sense they override other kinds of obligation, which is dependent on God's will. Divine commands are necessary and sufficient for moral obligations.

The deluded pagan is one who thinks and lives as a pagan, but self-deceptively thinks of himself as a Christian. He believes that neighbour-love can be identified with natural forms of love. Christian love is, according to Kierkegaard, domesticated. The power of romantic love and friendship lies in exclusivity. Christian love demands love of all. The deluded pagan is confused with this and the idea of obligation.

The spoiled pagan is one who confusedly mixes pagan and Christian views. He is a secular thinker who tries to take over the substance of Judaeo-Christian ethics without its foundation. The spoiled pagan believes that moral law is something we do not need God for. He talks in the language of emancipation and Enlightenment moral progress.