On the contrary, we as a society have agreed that in some cases it would be unethical to punish someone for a specific act that would otherwise be viewed as criminal; this is most clear in the example of self-defense, when a “reasonable” person, as generally determined by one’s “peers” (read: jury) would have done the same thing under the same circumstances.  There is allowance in our current ethics for this situation, so it is not a case where ethics have been suspended.

The case of “insanity” is much more difficult…at first it seemed to fit the criteria, inherent in Kierkegaard’s understanding of Abraham there is not just “teleological suspension of the ethical” but Abraham is said to have transcended the “universal”, that being the means by which we understand each other, therefore Abraham would be incapable of explaining himself to us.  This would seem to fit the pattern of criminal insanity, at (but not necessarily limited to) the moment of the crime, the person in question was unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.  This seems to indicate both suspension of the ethical and an inability for the rest of us to understand.  While people in this category are not “punished”, for my purposes I will limit the term to being sentenced to a penal institution for a period of time/capital punishment.  This does not make for a suspension of ethics; it once again just shows that our ethical code makes allowances within itself.

I can not believe that there is any valid position for the suspension of ethics in society, we as a society must function with some basic ground rules, I would allow that those ground rules are fewer and fewer the more of humanity is incorporated in the term “society” but there must be some that are so generic that all human societies follow them.  Having made a sweeping generalization, how then do I reinterpret the Abraham story without recourse to suspension of ethics?

I will presume the following, Abraham had a choice to make, he only had two options before him, sacrifice his son or defy God, both options went contrary to his ethics; Abraham made a choice not to defy God.  In Kierkegaard’s interpretation, Abraham kept hold of hope, the hope that God would reunite him and his son, in short he trusted God.  Trust can make many difficult decisions easier, Abraham made the decision to trust in God rather than defy him.  Looked at in this light it would be hard to believe that Abraham somehow transcended normal ethics to the point where he was allowed to murder his son.  Had God not intervened then he would not be the God that Abraham worshipped and trusted and it would have been perfectly ethical of Abraham to abandon his faith in God.  But this was not the point of the story, God did intervene and Abraham’s trust was justified.

Therefore, Abraham did not transcend the universal such that he should be looked upon in fear and awe by the rest of us; rather he is the exempla of faith in God.  He trusted God and that trust was not violated.