Mitya’s Reviews > Kierkegaard's Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations > Status Update

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