Joseph Carlsmith

In Volume I of Works of Love, Kierkegaard condemns preferential, “earthly” love and extols the virtues of impartial, “Christian” love. Yet he claims that his vision of Christianity leaves room for earthly relationships in their full richness. Controversy over this claim is longstanding, but a number of contemporary scholars have come to Kierkegaard’s defense. In what follows, I attempt to counter this trend. I do so by criticizing a scholar who I take to be one of Kierkegaard’s most persuasive apologists – Jamie Ferreira. Drawing on recent work by Harry Frankfurt, I argue that essential to human love-relationships is their generation of preferential moral commitments. Ferreira’s defense of Kierkegaard is therefore inadequate; it shows only how Kierkegaardian Christianity leaves room for attention to distinct individuals, not how such distinctness can become morally relevant. Indeed, Kierkegaard’s ethic of selflessness specifically precludes this possibility, since partiality, he claims, is necessarily selfish. This claim I also dispute. If my argument succeeds, then, I will have shown not only that Kierkegaardian Christianity eliminates the possibility of loving earthly relationships, but also that it does so on inadequate grounds. I will conclude by briefly discussing the possibility of revising Kierkegaard’s account, taking as my example the amendments recently proposed by Sharon Krishek