The fact that Kierkegaard's analysis is random musing and not dialectics is reinforced by the recurrence of old ambiguities as seen in Augustine: free will versus necessity. How can free will exist under the auspices of an omnipotent god? Kierkegaard largely ignores this question simply asserting that a human being is a synthesis of possibility ("free will") and necessity. He never considers the relationship of god to such a phenomenon -- in fact he cannot consider the relationship of god to such a phenomenon because it is a contradiction.
Likewise, the soldier going to fight the enemy sometimes has the right to refuse. The soldier has the right to transfer his service by paying another to take his place (269). A soldier may also run away in battle for fear of his/her life (270). A soldier, however, that accepts money to fight has no obligation to refuse the sovereign (270). According to Hobbes, a soldier does not have the right to refuse if "refusal to obey, frustrates the End for which the Soveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise there is" (269). Therefore a soldier may refuse to fight if to do so does not hurt the sovereign's goals.
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList