May a Person Let Himself Be Killed for the Truth?
Is dying for the truth always noble, or can it make others guilty of a murder that need not have happened? The first essay answers that no ordinary person has that right.
The argument turns on what the martyr does to his killers. Someone who lets himself be put to death for the truth makes those who kill him guilty of murder. That price could be justified only if he were wholly in the truth and they wholly in the wrong, and no ordinary person is: each holds the truth only in part. Concern for the killers, not only for the truth, is what forbids it. Kierkegaard drafted the essay late in 1847 and published it in May 1849, beside the essay on the genius and the apostle, under the initials H.H.
- martyrdom
- truth
- moral responsibility
- persecution
- courage
- sin
- guilt
- atonement
- ethics
- power
- action
- love
- silence
- suffering
Enter a dialogue
- History honours those who died rather than recant. Why deny an ordinary person the right to follow them?
- Socrates is honoured as a martyr for truth. Why was he killed, strictly, for his ignorance and not for the truth?
- Killing to force the truth on people is presumptuous. Why, for you, is it also presumptuous to let others become guilty of killing you for the truth?
- Someone is sure they are right and ready to pay any price for saying so. What would you ask them to consider first?