Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?

General Method: To understand the philosophical significance of this question, we have a lot of unpacking to do. We need to understand two concepts, the universal and the particular. Once we understand those, we can then see how they work with the Abraham and Issac story. For many, this part of the book is the most important and may have been Kierkegaard's most valuable philosophical insight.

Understanding the Universal and the Particular

In the first paragraph on page 83, we have all of the concepts that will be used throughout the chapter. If you can understand this paragraph, you are well on your way to understanding what is going on.

"The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which can be put from another point of view by saying that it applies at every moment. It rests immanently in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its telos [end, purpose] but is itself the telos for everything outside, and when that is taken up into it, it has no further to go."

Translated: Universal and ethical are used interchangeably by K-gaard. We think of the ethical, or what counts as right conduct, as applying to everyone across the board--there are no exceptions. There is not a time, nor a place where the ethical is not in effect. The universal/ethical need no further justification (it rests immanently in itself, has nothing outside of itself that is its purpose), but is the end of everything else--nothing is higher than the universal/ethical. Or, in modern speak, the ethical/universal is the end of the road, there is nothing further.

"Seen as an immediate, no more than sensate and psychic, being, the single individual is the particular that has its telos in the universal, and that individual's ethical task is always to express himself in this, to abrogate his particularity so as to become the universal. "

Translated: A person's end is being an ethical being. To be this kind of being that does the right thing, one must keep him/herself aligned with the universal or the dictates of universal morality. The individual must deny him/herself and his/her individual wants and desires in favor the universal. The universal rules over the individual if they are an ethical being.

"As soon as the single individual wants to assert himself in this particularity, in direct opposition to the universal, he sins, and only by recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal. Whenever, having entered the universal, the single individual feels an urge to assert his particularity, he is in a state of temptation, from which he can only extricate himself by surrendering his particularity to the universal in repentance."

Translation: When you put your desires and wishes above the commands of universal morality, you sin.  Even when you feel the urge to express your desires that are in opposition to the universal, you are being tempted and to get your ethical character back in line, you must repent and return to the universal.

At this stage, we now have the basic distinction down. You can think of this in many ways. A legal analogy. We have laws in society and laws are the universal, they apply to all in our society. However, the individual may assert her particularity and break a law.  We often hear, "No one is above the law," much like no one is above the universal. To get herself back in line with the universal, the individual must repent and realize that the assertion of her independence is not acceptable. Either she does it on her own accord and the system will do it for her.

"If that (surrendering the particularity to the universal) is the highest that can be said of man and his existence, then the ethical and a person's eternal blessedness, which is his telos in all eternity and at every moment, are identical: for in that case it would be a contradiction to say that one surrendered that telos (i.e. suspended it teleologically) since by suspending the telos one would be forfeiting it, while what is said to be suspended is in this sense is not forfeited but preserved in something higher, the latter being precisely its telos."

Translation: This structure and content of this passage make a simple idea into a very complex one that is hard to understand as it stands here.  Our eternal purpose must be the same as our momentary purpose. If these are distinct, you are asserting your particularity against the universal and suspending the universal in favor of the particular.

Hegel

Hegel believed the particular is NEVER above the universal. Much like the law analogy above, no one is ever above the law. This is going to be the idea that Kierkegaard argues against.

Faith as a Paradox

"For faith just is this paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal, though in such a way, be it noted, that the movement is repeated, that is, that, having been in the universal, the single individual now sets himself apart as the particular above the universal. If that is not faith, then Abraham is done for and faith never existed in the world, just because it has always existed."

Translation: The individual sets himself above the decrees of society. Remember the ethical dimension was murder. Faith sets the individual higher than the universal and in the process into the religious dimension of sacrifice. Faith then is something special that does not exist at all times; otherwise, anyone who followed the dictates or commands of the objective/ethical dimension would be exercising faith.

Now it should be clear how this all pertains to Abraham and Issac. Abraham puts himself above the universal for the end purpose of pleasing God. He breaks the norms of society for a higher purpose.

The leap of faith now takes on its proper meaning. The individual takes the leap of faith when he/she recognizes the priority of the individual over the universal. You leap, blindly, outside the laws, norms, and dictates of society, and act according to some higher end or purpose. Notice this has nothing to do with the existence of God. God is assumed to exist to start this whole chain of ideas.

An Absolute Duty to God

"Then faith's paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the single individual determines his relation to the universal through his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute through his relation to the universal."

Translation: Your relationship with God comes before your relationship with the ethical system of society. This is in contrast to you determining how well you stand with God based upon how well you follow the society's ethical system. Faith is what justifies you before God, not your actions.  Abraham's faith is what made the act right. He believed on the strength of the absurd and trusted God.

Summary

We now see that Abraham teleologically suspended the ethical. What does that mean? He set aside the ethical realm or the dictates of society in favor of a higher end or purpose, that being, the command of God. He believed on the strength of the absurd and in doing so, he acted in faith. Our absolute duty is to God, not to society and recognizing this allowed Abraham to take the 'leap of faith.'