Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 2 - Why Be Moral? The Critique of Amoralism

  • from Part I - Self, Despair, and Wholeheartedness
  • Roe Fremstedal, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
  • Book:
    Kierkegaard on Self, Ethics, and Religion
    Published online:
    27 January 2022
    Print publication:
    17 February 2022, pp 34-53

  • Summary

    Chapter 2 deals with the critique of the aesthetical stage by focusing on Either/Or. It is shown that this critique offers an original answer to the “why be moral?” question relevant to contemporary debates on amoralism and practical moral skepticism. Specifically, Either/Or develops an original critique of amoralism that escapes a difficult dilemma associated with justifications of morality. According to this dilemma, any such justification must either offer moral or nonmoral (prudential) reasons for being moral. But the former seems circular and question begging, whereas the latter seems like the wrong kind of reasons, which could only support egoism and legality, not altruism and morality. However, Kierkegaard develops three different argumentative strategies that all escape this dilemma, providing strong motivation and reasons for assessing ourselves morally. He thus offers a powerful critique of amoralism that is relevant to contemporary concerns, while being rooted in historical discussions of Kantianism, German Romanticism, and idealism.