Professional Documents
Culture Documents
his audience
The message of Sartres lecture was affected by the situation in post-war France,
where many people were blaming others for the horrors that had taken place,
but Sartre tells his audience that everyone must take responsibility
The lecture is not Sartres definitive statement on existentialism or on ethics; two
years before the lecture Sartre had written Being and Nothingness, which is the
most definitive account of existentialism, whilst his final philosophical writings
optimism (26)
Sartre wants to explain what he sees as the true definition of existentialism as
he sees that the word is now so loosely applied to so many things that it no
paperknife
Being-for-itself self-conscious free beings who are able to determine their own
free but also responsible for all of our actions and for the whole of humanity
Abandonment by God there is no God, so there is no purpose, no meaning,
and there is a lack of any external authority; within this state of loneliness we
Ethics
must make decisions about how to act, e.g. Sartres pupil was abandoned no
-
an essence
Scum people who think of their existence as necessary as opposed to
accidental
Authenticity acting in the knowledge that we have absolute freedom, being fully
despair (23)
Existentialism emphasises the uglier side of life, making bad what is usually
perceived as good, e.g. Mlle Mercier said existentialists forget how an infant
smiles (23)
Existentialism isolates individuals, ignoring the solidarity of humanity and
the paperknife
Subjectivity
- A subjective life is one that is free
- We make choices and define ourselves through our actions
Ethics
- Our subjectivity is intimately connected with our freedom
Atheism
- There is no God so there no human nature
- No supernal artisan (28)
3. Implications of existentialism
Emotional implications
- Anguish feeling that we get when we understand that we are responsible not
only for our own choices but also for everyone elses, e.g. Abraham choosing to
sacrifice his son, the military leader who choose to follow an order and send his
-
consequence of abandonment
Despair living up to the fact that our actions are limited and there is no God
who can help us out beyond those limits, should focus on what we can achieve,
e.g. hoping that the train will come on time, worrying about what will happen
actions
Metaphysical implications
- Freedom man is nothing, we are free and we must accept responsibility for
our choices
- Facticity
Ethical implications
- Authenticity we are responsible for choosing for everyone and we invent and
-
faith
- Existentialist ethics
4. Defence of existentialism
Existentialism is not as depressing as common wisdom it is actually really positive
we do and we are responsible for what we do places our destiny in our own hands
Existentialism unites individuals inter-subjectivity it is a moral theory which
are free
Existentialism is a humanism that values the potential of people to be free, to make
choices, to invent morality
Ethics
Phenomenology:
upon experience obtained through the senses, e.g. Locke and Hume
Phenomenology concerned with experience of conscious mind, e.g. Sartres
method
Sartres method of phenomenology
- Phenomenology is literally the study of appearances, of the world as it appears in
-
our consciousness
Phenomena are the sensations that furnish your mind, e.g. sounds, colours
This approach was founded in the early 1900s by the German philosopher
appears to the conscious mind: the colours, the shapes, the noises etc.
Phenomenology seeks to explore the world by looking at how the conscious mind
perceives it, and so we must limit our philosophical investigations to what we, as
Ethics
-
argument
The English
philosopher
Mary
Warnock
wrote
of
Sartres
method:
experiences
The cogito
- Sartre was impressed by Descartes ideas about individual consciousness
- we base our doctrine on pure subjectivity upon the Cartesian I think. (24)
- The cogito: cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am
- The one thing that Descartes could not doubt was that he was thinking, that he
-
being
The certainty of the cogito is at the heart of existentialism we must begin with
feelings
This relates to Sartres phenomenological approach, beginning with the
experiences of the individual, rather than with abstract ideas or the external
world
Our point of departure is, indeed, the subjectivity of the individual. (51)
- Point of departure may mean that this is the starting point of all existentialist
enquiry, that the experiences of the individual are the starting point
Ethics
-
But this statement also implies that subjectivity is the place where existentialist
philosophy departs from mainstream philosophy, by explicitly rejecting the
(52)
Sartre was not really interested in trying to prove the existence of the world,
which Descartes tried to do, rather he simply wanted to describe the world as it
Ethics
Our consciousness is intentional, it can be directed on to external objects as well
as back on to itself, i.e. self-consciousness
- Examples of self-consciousness include feeling guilty, feeling proud, feeling
clumsy, looking in a mirror, feeling stared at, wondering what you are going to do
with your life, remembering past experiences
- Being-for-itself is self-conscious
- Sartre believed that self-consciousness carries certain special qualities and he
identified self-consciousness with nothingness
- Self-consciousness means being able to
o See ourselves as separate from the world
o Picture different possibilities for ourselves
o Imagine ourselves as different to who and what we are now
o Act without being acted upon, i.e. self-determination
- Being-for-itself, the beings that have the capacity of self-consciousness, take a
central and special place in Sartres philosophy
- It is being-for-itself that turns out to be absolutely free
Criticisms of the idea of subjectivity:
- We might ask where animals fit into Sartres theory his discussion of being-foritself focuses on humans and his examples of being-in-itself tend to be artificial
objects
- Sartre would have probably excluded animals from his conception of a conscious
being
- But we would like to say that at least some of them were conscious as many
mammals behave in complex ways and show signs of emotions, and some even
have the capacity for language
- But Sartre is most likely using consciousness in a particular way he is linking
it to subjectivity and to self-consciousness
2. Nothingness
The core of our being is nothingness
- This nothingness is the key to our freedom
- The ability to detach ourselves from the world, and look at the past, present and
-
the future
Humans can consciously distinguish ourselves from the outside world due to our
nothingness
Examples of nothingness: absence of knowing someone is not in the room,
feeling of meaninglessness
One of the examples Sartre uses to explain this concept of nothingness is within
his autobiography: he explains a time when he was young when he went to a
party with his grandfather, and part way through the evening, his grandfather
noticed that his friend was missing, and this absence created a feeling of
nothingness
One of the most important aspect of nothingness is that it enables that we can
choose to take
- Objects (being-in-itself) are determined by their past, thus their future is a given
- This is the complete opposite of humans, who are being-for-itself
We are self-conscious and so can see ourselves as separate from the world
Ethics
if man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with
he is nothing (30)
Consciousness is
independently of consciousness
We can never be conscious of our own self-consciousness
Consciousness holds our experiences, but we cannot experience it itself,
always
of
something,
thus
consciousness
does
exist
therefore it is nothing
Criticisms of the idea of nothingness
- Some would argue that Sartres argument is not coherent, because the different
examples he used dont seem to share a common theme, apart from the fact that
-
absence of being
3. Atheism
Atheism = God does not exist
First implication of atheism is that a divine artisan has not designed humans and
therefore human existence precedes essence and so we are absolutely free
- Man is not defined by a divine creator
- God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the
superfluous
If there is no God then there is no meaning or purpose to anything in the
universe
Philosophers have often drawn a close connection between God and Morality
If there is a God, then it would be possible to know a priori, the objective rules
that he has laid down for us to follow but if there is no God, then there is no
objective morality
- we ignore the commandments of God and all values prescribed as eternal (24)
Dostoyevskys The Brother Karamazov
- One of the characters argues that if there is no God to create moral laws or to
judge our souls after we die, then effectively we are free to do anything we
-
Ethics
afterwards. (30)
Man begins as nothing, just existing
There is no human nature as there is nothing that defines human except for
their individual selves
man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself (30)
Man makes himself; he is not found ready-made. (59)
Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises
himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but
something different
In order for humans to have an essence before their existence, there would have
not exist
Sartres paperknife example (27-28)
- The paperknife is made by someone who had a conception of it (27)
- Had to pay attention to both the conception of the knife but also the pre-existent
technique of production (28)
- The knife is made in a certain way, with a definite purpose
- Therefore for this object the essence precedes its existence
- the presence of such-and-such a paper knife or book is thus determined before my
eyes (28)
- A view of God as the creator means he is a supernal artisan (28)
Ethics
Man to God is like the paperknife to the producer, made according to a
procedure and a conception (29)
- Each man is made through Gods planning and knowledge of what that man is
going to be
- This represents the idea that essence is prior to existence, popular among
philosophers such as Diderot, Voltaire and Kant, who see man as having a
human nature (29)
- Kant universalises man so much that the wild man in the woods... and the
bourgeois are all contained in the same definition and have the same fundamental
qualities (29)
- If God does not exist then something had to exist before it is given an essence,
before it can be defined by any conception of it, this is the human reality (29)
The human condition
- Although there is no human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality
of condition (54)
- We are all born, have to make our way, and we will all die
- The human condition is objective in the sense that it is common for everyone,
identifiable at every stage of mans existence, but subjective in that it is
meaningless if it is not experienced
- Duality of the absolute and universal character of free choice and commitment,
compared to the relativity of a culture or era
- The human condition is all the limitations which a priori define mans
fundamental situation in the universe (54)
- Although people may be born in different times and places there are necessary
things from being in the world, working and then dying in the world
- These limitations are objective, because we meet with them everywhere and
they are everywhere recognisable: and subjective because they are lived and
nothing if man does not liv them (54)
- Although every single persons purpose is different, all peoples purposes have
the desire to grow in themselves or else to deny or to accommodate oneself to
them each individual action or purpose is seen to be of universal value
- Believes that people from all different groups and nationalities, i.e. a Chinese,
an Indian...can be understood by a European, who may be going towards the
same goal from situations that are the same in the same limitations (55)
- All purposes contain universality as it is comprehensible to everyone, although it
does not mean a person is defined forever but entertained again and again (55)
- There are definable characteristics that exist in all men e.g. the idiot, a foreigner,
which understandable to all
- Universality is not given but it is perpetually made i.e. the universality is made
in choosing oneself and understanding the purpose of any other man whatever
the time period (55)
Criticisms of the idea that existence precedes essence:
- If we have no essence, than how can our existence precede our essence, because
-
Ethics
-
Do other living things have an essence or not, because surely if they do they
have been designed, and if they have been designed, does that imply that there is
a God?
Sartre says that we are all free, or that there is a universality to the human
condition, but then at other times he denies that we have an essence because
we are absolutely free. So surely our essence is our freedom, or our lack of
logical extreme
If existence precedes essence, we must acquire an essence, yet Sartre argues the
essence does not exist BUT Sartre may use the word precedes to show that
existence is a necessary precondition for essence
freedom
Freedom
- Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist. (37)
- Man is free, man is freedom. (38)
- Man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet
is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he
-
humanity (55)
We shall not say that a prisoner is always free to go out of prison, which would
be absurd but that he is always free to try to escape (or get himself liberated),
that is, that whatever his condition may be, he can project his escape and learn
the value of his project by undertaking some action. (Being and Nothingness)
We have to choose
- Not choosing is still a choice: I can always choose, but I must know that if I do
-
Ethics
-
We
-
responsibility. (57)
have to invent values
The moral choice is comparable to the construction of a work of art (58)
there is no-predefined picture for him to make
there are no aesthetic values a priori, but there are values which will appear in
due course in the coherence of the picture, in the relation between the will to create
him (58)
Existentialists do not believe in progress: Progress implies amelioration; but man
is always the same, being a situation which is always changing, and choice
human nature
Women believe that they have an essence that is inferior to men, which is not
free (38)
- Fear we are afraid of our freedom
What about determinism?
- Determinism = all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by prior causes
- Sartre is only concerned with phenomenological freedom - our inner experience
-
Ethics
physical laws
There are vast biological, social and economic forces that influence our
behaviour and limit our choices, e.g. the socialization and experiences of
children from an early age determine the habits of a lifetime, and our essential
in a locked room, who thinks that he is free to leave the room, when he is not
Some theists, e.g. Calvin, would argue that because there is an all-powerful and
environment are living in bad faith, and are failing to recognise their freedom
We can all think of examples of people who have struggled against the odds, e.g.
Stephen Hawking or Beethoven, who have even overcome physical disabilities
get a well-paid job etc., but those are values that we could change
We do still have faith so long as we have a chance of overcoming whatever
parents, so there is nothing else I could choose that they would approve of
Sartres response to the criticism that are choices are not unlimited: Sartre
agrees with this, as making choices will entail consequences and then we have to
live with those consequences, which is why Sartre claims that man is
but we should not pretend that we have no choice at all we are without excuse
Sartre claims that there is no essential human nature which might limit human
freedom of choice, but even if people have not been designed for any purpose, they
are none the less restricted in what they can choose to do by their nature
Sartre leaves no room for the idea that freedom might be a matter of degree which
can vary over time
- Yielding under threat is to be coerced rather than to make a truly voluntary
-
action
Some that suffers from alcohol or cigarette addiction, is not free because they
Ethics
can weaken the control we have over our actions or even remove it altogether
- BUT as long as there is a chance to do it differently you are free
Sartre does not seem to consider seriously the condition of people for whom social
and economic constraints present formidable obstacles
- Acting with full freedom may be fine for people brought up and educated in a
liberal country where many values are discussed and tolerated, but what if we
have been brought up to believe that the only real option is to live the life of a
direction
- BUT we cannot use the past as an excuse
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (fellow existentialist) held a view of freedom which avoided
the rather absurd claim that we can choose to radically change the direction of our
lives at any time. His key points were:
- A responsible choice us not one that may be overthrown at a whim
- Many choices are the first step down a long road our freedom is not powerful
-
that they have chosen it, only that they have not rejected it
We need to find out more about someones circumstances before we make a
judgment about the aspects of their lives for which they are to be held
responsible, e.g. someone may have been brought up as a Christian, so they may
not know any different, or know that they do not have to be a Christian, which
Facticity:
of physics
One aspect of our facticity is that we are being-for-itself, that we do not have an
Ethics
In Sartres view facticity does not represent a limit on our freedom, but rather our
facticity is the framework within which we must express our freedom, through the
see something as an obstacle, we must first have some project which it obstructs
There is one other aspect to our lives which we cannot choose, but which gives each
have done, rather we must accept our past and move on, reinventing ourselves
BUT why should we be more concerned with our metaphysical freedom when we are
responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. (31)
In fashioning myself I fashion man. (33)
Freedom and responsibility lead to anguish, abandonment and despair
We fear for something within us, of our freedom and what we can do with it, and this
Ethics
Realisation that we are responsible for our decisions and the consequences of our
actions
Sartre gives the example of a military leader leading men to their death by sending
them on an attack, who would inevitably feel anguish because he has huge
responsibility: It is anguish pure and simple, of the kind well known to all those who
have borne responsibilities. When, for instance, a military leader takes upon himself
the...responsibility for an attack and sends a number of men to their death, he
chooses to do it and at bottom he alone chooses. [...] in making the decision, he cannot
but feel a certain anguish. All leaders know that anguish. (35)
Most of the time we avoid dwelling on our anguish by ignoring the fact that we are
free, by living in bad faith, but at certain moments our anguish reveals itself and we
chosen
BUT if we are free and responsible all of the time, then why do we not feel anguish
all of the time? Sartre would say we disguise or bury the anguish by pretending to
ourselves that we are not free: nor can one escape from that disturbing thought
decipher whether it is actually God speaking to him, and so this leads to anguish
2. Abandonment and Choice: (36-44)
Abandonment arises from the realisation that there is no God, no purpose, nothing
(36)
For Sartre, we make an existential realisation we have finally recognised that there
is no God or divine plan to give the world meaning or offer guidance on how we
should live
Passage from Nausea Roquentin is suddenly struck by the brute fact of the
existence of material objects; these objects just exist with no purpose or meaning in
their existence
Recognition of the fundamental absurdity of the world (world is a result of some
Ethics
The foundation for lifes meaning and morality has disappeared so we feel alone and
abandoned: there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an
intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite
abandonment, absurdity and disgust: man is responsible for his passion (38)
We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is
condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is
nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is
(38)
Need to take the first step to realise that we must create our own meaning and
purpose, as just because there is no God does not mean that there is no point in
living (not nihilism): there is a future to be fashioned, a virgin future awaits him (39)
Abandonment is the position in which Sartres pupil finds himself when faced with
support, what his purpose in life is and he must make his own moral choices
He [the pupil] had to choose between those two. What could help him to choose?
Could the Christian doctrine? No Who can give an answer to that a priori? No
expect, from some ethic, formulae that will enable me to act. (42)
We are free, therefore choose that is to say, invent (43)
Ethics
-
No rule of general morality can show you what you ought to do: no signs are
vouchsafed in this world it is I myself, in every case, who have to interpret the
signs. (43)
For the decipherment of the sign, however, he bears the entire responsibility. That
you choose the ethical theory you want to implement cannot escape choice
BUT what is involved in a freely chosen act?
- Sartre makes it clear that there is nothing that can help the pupil to decide what
to choose i.e. no advisors, no moral codes or external factors and not even his
feelings
If nothing is to act as a motivator for the pupils action , where does the act come
from and what is the decision based on, and so is the pupils action arbitrary?
Sartre would say no as he believes that genuine choice cannot be based on a
whim
Sartres pupil seems to be abandoned not just by God but also by Sartres
philosophy
Sartre refuses to analyse what freedom actually is or where it comes from
- Takes a phenomenological approach so can only deal with our experience of free
-
choice
Sartre cannot say what is a free action but for Sartre there is no such thing as
an unfree action
Even if we let our actions be guided by advice, signs or moral rules, we are still
that we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills. (44)
Despair has some positive effects as we can then focus on what is still within our
power, but the negative effects could cause us to return to quietism, which is a bad
Ethics
-
You cant however rely upon people who you do not know as I cannot base my
confidence upon human goodness or upon mans interest in the good of society as
man is wholly free with no defined nature that a person can recognise (46)
You can look to the revolution in e.g. Russia and look at it as an example but
you cannot say that it will necessarily lead to the triumph of the proletariat but
can only look at the world that is being experienced around you (46)
You also cannot truly be sure that your comrade-in-arms will work after your
death you can only be sure of that which you experience- those men are
themselves free agents who freely decide at any point what they will define man
as they may decide to establish Fascism or run away from the fight
Fascism would then therefore be the truth of man (47)
If this is the case then should a person just abandon themselves to quietism?
No! An individual should commit themselves and then act upon that conviction
under the banner of one need not hope in order to undertake ones work (47)
Only the individual knows what is in their own power to achieve and beyond that
their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope. (68)
Despair is part of our freedom, but it can also become overwhelming and
the same time, understanding that there are things not within our power
Quietism is the attitude of people who say, let others do what I cannot do (47)
In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait and there is nothing but that
portrait. No doubt this thought may seem comfortless to one who has not made a
proving it
To a large extent, the concept of despair opposes the idea of freedom, and he is
providing yet another excuse for restricting our freedom whilst still claiming that
Ethics
Many have one idea to say that circumstances have been against me and I could
have been much better if this had not been the case, however in reality there is no
love apart from the deeds of love... is no genius other than that which is expressed in
our freedom
We evade the terrible responsibility of having to make decisions about our lives and
deception (33)
We can avoid anguish by pretending that we are not responsible for our actions,
scum. (62-63)
Cowards flee from their freedom and responsibility by hiding in the pretence that
Ethics
-
In works of fiction or even in real life some peoples behaviour is said by others to
be based upon their heredity, or by the action of their environment upon them, or
coward: the coward makes himself cowardly, the hero makes himself heroic (51)
There is no such thing as a cowardly temperament, it is not biological or
it and you will be cowards all your lives whatever you do (50)
You have to commit yourself to whatever side you have chosen what counts is
the total commitment as there is always the possibility for the coward to give up
can freely do
Some people absorb themselves in the tiny details of life and are not engaged
they are no more than the flesh and bones of their body
In B&N Sartre gives the example of a woman on a date who is being
propositioned by a man and is pretending not to notice. He takes her hand in his
and she has to make a decision: to leave it there, and this give tacit consent to
his proposal, or to withdraw, and so give him the brush-off. In an act of supreme
bad faith she disengages herself from her hand, treating it as if it were not hers,
refusing to use it to make a decision, when we cannot pretend that our bodies
being accidental and therefore think that their lives possess an inherent value
Uses quite harsh language for an offence that seems quite minor so may have
been influenced by the post-war context of the lecture, directing his anger
towards the Nazis who believed that they were part of an Aryan master race who
Ethics
-
Sartre seems to imply that it can never be possible for our emotional state to
mitigating circumstances
For example, feelings of grief or abuse may lead to an extreme action for which
f)
-
follow them
We can follow signs in good faith so long as we acknowledge our choice to follow
them
g) Following other peoples advice can lead to bad faith
- Like Sartres pupil we can ask others for advice but we often turn to others when
we cannot make a choice for ourselves, and if we blame them for giving us the
-
whom we actually ask, and we also have the choice to take their advice
His pupil could have chosen a priest to ask for advice, but instead he chose his
philosophy teacher, so he had already selected the range of advice to which he
was prepared to listen
Ethics
-
His choice of advisor reveals the kind of advice that he wanted, so we must
recognise that we choose our advisors and must take full responsibility for
to be a coward or scum?
From what moral high ground can Sartre condemn those in bad faith?
If Sartre is right in asserting that there are no objective moral values, then
surely he cannot make any sort of moral judgement about acting in bad faith
His attacks seem to come from a moral high ground, which, by his own
in fact we are
Perhaps bad faith is better known as mistaken faith, we are putting our faith in
practical possibility
We must be aware of our freedom but for most of the time we do not think of
ourselves as free
There is also a moral dimension to Sartres concept of bad faith the patterns of
replacing good/evil
You are acting authentically if you acknowledge that existence precedes essence,
that you are entirely responsible for your actions and yourself, as you are
responsibility for those actions, and engaging with the invention of our lives
Existentialism declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further,
indeed, and adds, Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far
as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing
Ethics
human essence
One can choose anything, but only if it is upon the plane of free commitment. (65)
Sartre refers to commitment which is creating meaning through action so
authenticity is all about acting on your freedom, as Sartre despised people who did
not take action within their lives and merely sit around doing nothing all their lives
Emphasises that taking action within your life is a key part of authenticity and
living authentically
In so committing, you are also choosing for others; continually choosing responses
that affirm freedom and responsibility rather than responses that signify a flight
own self that one discovers in the cogito, but those of others too (53)
Using the concept of the cogito, were attaining to ourselves in the presence of
other meaning we can acknowledge others as much as ourselves- the discovery
Ethics
-
but instead he says we should respect and commit to the freedom of others
He means that there is a middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity,
known as inter-subjectivity
This means that there is a common agreement between two or more individuals
We have to acknowledge that we are responsible for something much greater
than just ourselves: in choosing for himself he chooses for all men (31)
Example: If... I decide to marry and to have children even though it is a highly
personal act, the I is buying into a standard of not only committing himself,
myself. (53)
Without other people we would not be aware of our own freedom
We cannot live in a vacuum relates to facticity
Sartre could be saying that we only become aware of our freedom when other
people try to treat us as an object or he could be saying that other people look at
Ethics
-
It is in this world [of inter-subjectivity] that man has to decide what he is and
others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. (62)
We value our own freedom because other people value it, and without them we
Existentialism is a Humanism
- This is the original title of Sartres lecture and demonstrates Sartres belief that
existentialism is a theory which sees humans as valuable in their own right
- Existentialism works for the benefits of humankind
- Not encouraging nihilism or anarchy
- Concerned with metaphysical freedom freedom of the will
Sartres task of constructing an existentialist ethics is difficult because
- Atheism Sartre dismisses the view that there can be any objective moral values
-
as there is no God
Bad faith it would be living in bad faith to believe that we are obliged to follow
moral rules so existentialist ethics must not issue prescriptive moral rules
Absolute freedom We must make our own choices we are condemned to be
free
Inter-subjectivity we need to respect the freedom of others, therefore
existentialist ethics will necessarily HAVE to impinge on our freedom (in order to
world
Even if there are a set of objective rules out there we could never know what
by individual subjectivity
There cannot be an objective morality without God
- And God does not exist so there is no objective morality
- Sartre recognises that some atheist philosophers, such as Mill, have tried to
construct an objective morality without God, but he believes that they fail as
-
they do not carry the same compulsion as a moral law created by God
No weight behind an objective law not created by God
The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does
not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an
Ethics
intelligible heaven it is nowhere written that the good exists, that one must be
honest or not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. (37)
Sartres examples: (63-65)
- Maggie Tulliver from Mill on the Floss
- La Sanseverina from The Charterhouse of Parma
- Sartre uses characters from these novels as an example of two people who are in
the position of inventing their own moral values, imagining both characters faced
-
solidarity to sacrifice herself and to give up the man she loves (62)
La Senseverina would grasp her lover with both hands, as their passion would
be preferred to the banality of such conjugal love as would unite Stephen to the
own values
The point Sartre is trying to make is that values are created, there is nothing
objective about them: Here we are facing two clearly opposed moralities; but I
claim that they are equivalent, seeing that in both cases the overruling aim is
freedom. (64)
One can choose anything but only if it is on the plane of free commitment. (65)
At first sight Sartres existentialism seems to be fundamentally incompatible with
or a judgement of truth
On the other hand Sartre makes a moral judgement by condemning people for
Ethics
-
lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men (37)
Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist. (37)
You are free, therefore choose that is to say, invent. No rule of general morality
own morality as we choose what we think is right because we will never know
BUT we can make choices but we may not believe that the value behind that
choice is right
3. A value is a value for everyone
- I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice
-
of monogamy. (32)
Nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all
BUT conflates values and moral values
Similar to Kants principle of universalizability
Things which we consider valuable or worthwhile are also things which we think
actions set an example for others rather than literally choosing for others
Uses Kants terminology when he says that someone making a choice is not only
choosing for him/herself but is choosing thereby at the same time a legislator
Ethics
-
In reality, if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do what they
want you to do to stay alive, you did not really have a free choice
6. I must accept responsibility for everyone who makes the same choice as me
- He is responsible for all men in choosing for himself he choose for all men (31)
- I must accept responsibility for everyone who makes the same choice as me
- Link to the Golden Rule of Morality we should act in a way in which we would
freedom of others
For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other
end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon
himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is
more valuable than other people but to believe in intrinsic values is bad faith
BUT if people choose to live in bad faith (i.e. value their own freedom more highly
than others) then Sartre has no moral leverage which would force them to
bad faith
Mary Warnocks interpretation of Sartres existentialist morality
- Existentialism is a moral theory because it demands that we take a certain
-
whole of humanity
We want the option/opportunity of making a choice rather than actually wanting
Ethics
-
Existentialism is a humanism:
we are in control
It involves the invention of values: Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to
make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose. (65)
Existentialism unites individuals and takes account of other people so it is not
individualistic
There is a possibility of creating a human community (65)
Existentialism is a humanism, not because man is treated as some supreme value
(Sartre sees this as the wrong definition of humanism), but because man must make
his own choices to realize himself as fully human: an existentialist will never take
point of view, as you would still be responsible for your actions (68)
E.g. God is silent we dont know what God wants me to do, so it is still all on me
The real problem is what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that
nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God (68)