Which Version of Abraham Is Scarier?

In Kierkegaard’s existentialist interpretation, Abraham has reservations about sacrificing his son, but overcomes them. In a more traditionalist framework, he’s a total devotee with no shred of doubt. The former knows it’s irrational to engage in human sacrifice, but chooses to be irrational, anyways. The latter believes it’s perfectly rational.

Translate this to the realm of contemporary life, lest you think Abraham a mere exaggeration or ancient fable. And ask yourself, which you fear most: the ideologue for whom no amount of counter-evidence can be persuasive, or the existentialist who knows the ethical objections of “the other side,” but swats them away in favor of a higher calling (what Kierkegaard calls “the teleological suspension of the ethical”).

Arendt says Eichmann’s crimes originated from his “thoughtlessness” (what others might call unreflective devotion). But ask yourself—would it have been better (assuming it possible) if the same person, behaving in the same way, were more thought out?