Jean-Paul+Sartre+and+the+Existential+Ethical+Position

**Jean-Paul Sartre and the Existential Ethical Position **

Jean-Paul Sartre is a 20th Century philosopher that developed “Existential Humanism.” This type of humanism, however, is completely distinct from that of other humanistic thought for it does not make being human the end all. Instead the existential humanist believes humans constantly shape themselves by their actions. Furthermore, meanings and values are created by the purpose of those actions. This can be described as a universe of human subjectivity where man projects himself outward to achieve transcendent aims.[1]With this definition Sartre develops his ethical theory, and in this essay I will briefly explain Sartre’s human condition, how that condition relates to his ethical theory, and the criticisms of that theory. **Human Condition ** What it means to be human is a question that philosophy has been attempting to answer from its conception. Many believe that to be human is a pre-existing ideal transcending human thought. This line of thinking states that essence precedes existence. To illustrate this I will use a lengthy quote from Sartre.

If one considers an article of manufacture – as, for example, a book or a paper-knife – one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it, and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serves a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say then of the paper-knife that its essence – that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made it production and its definition possible – precedes its existence. The presence of such-and-such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence.[2]

This quote uses an inanimate object but Sartre will also apply this to the belief of God as the creator. The //a priori// ideology stemmed from the objective value theories placed in thought by Plato and Aristotle gives man a distinct position in the world and endows him with a fixed nature consisting of rational faculties setting a natural end – the realization of these faculties.[3] Philosophies of this nature require man to conform his actions into roles predetermined for him. Sartre believes that this sort of human nature (condition) takes freedom away from man, and places someone or something in control of humanity. This leads Sartre to develop a human condition ideology with no //a priori// meaning. To quote Sartre, “Man is nothing other than he makes himself to be.”[4]

Sartre’s human condition begins with the ideal of nothingness. Many before him would have said that something, such as human life, could never come from nothing. To put as Parmenides did only nothing can come from nothing. Sartre on the other hand takes a much more pragmatic and optimistic view of nothing and what can come from it. Sartre goes on to state that humans when entering the world are devoid of meaning, nothing. This in turn leads to his ideology that humans begin to define themselves through their actions. However, actions according to Sartre are very specific, for man is not defined through his perceptions of himself but his actual willful actions. This fulfills Sartre’s ideal that man is free. In addition, we must answer what other aspects of the human condition affect our actions. As previously stated Sartre believes that an //a priori// view of humanity removes freedom from man, but another aspect that is removed from man is his responsibility. Responsibility is a key component in Sartre’s human condition. Furthermore, this responsibility includes the responsibility of the individual’s action and its affect upon humanity as a whole. With these two ideals in place Sartre further broadens the human condition that involves three aspects of human life.

First, man is thrown and/or abandoned into the world at a specific place and time. Upon being thrown into a specific place and time man is given distinct facts such as being male or female, white or colored, or poor or rich. These facts as Sartre calls them are what make up the world, and it is within these un-escapable parameters that we must act. Though we must act within these parameters we are still free because our choice to go against the parameters is still ours. Man, however, is completely responsible for the actions upon which he projects himself. Again he is not only responsible for his own actions, but how they will affect all others in the world. For Sartre this creates anguish, a term he derives from Martin Heidegger’s “angst.” Finally, with this freedom to choose whichever path one wants and the anguish of knowing your choice affects mankind as a whole leads to the human condition of despair. Despair stems from the finality of man’s choices, for once man has made his choice he is unable to go and change it. This however, is not the only explanation for Sartre’s human condition.

John Wild in his essay “Authentic Existence” explains that these are universal conditions and “existential norms,” which are possible ways of meaningful existence which lie before us as men. Further explanation comes in an example of, “I am a possibility to be achieved, so far as this is possible. But as long as I exist, I am unfinished and incomplete.”[5] The last part of the quotation refers back to the ideal that there is no //a priori// meaning for man. Since man has no pre-existing meaning he must create values within his condition. This creation of values out of the human condition is what Sartrean Ethics is developed around. **Sartrean Ethics ** The major element of the human condition that is emphasized the most throughout Sartrean Ethics is freedom piggy-backed by responsibility. Since no human lives completely free on their own accord, the responsibility of one’s actions extends out to all men. This implies that when we make a choice it is not subjective to just the person making the choice, but is inter-subjective to all mankind.[6] Sartre believes that if a man is aware of his human condition it will lead him to make decisions that are good for not only themselves but all of humanity. For example, if a man chooses marriage he not only believes marriage is good for him, but that the act of marriage is good for all men. The “good,” however, is not distinctly clear for it can be defined multiple ways. Sartre would take the argument as such:

Whenever I make a choice, I choose the good. The good for one is the good for all. Therefore, in choosing for myself, I choose for all.[7]

Furthermore, no //a priori// meaning of mankind leads to “no //a priori”// moral law. This refers back to man’s abandonment, anguish, and despair in his situation to have to choose a rule that affects all of humanity receiving no help from within himself or without. Consequently, this means that logical judgment is needed. Yet, there are no claims as to how the individual should make that judgment.[8] This involves man to recognize and realize the world that he has been abandoned in and to use his knowledge to make his own decisions. Again Sartre is unclear on how exactly man should answer these question only that it is part of the despair in which the human condition leaves us.

Ethically, Sartre says there is only one thing that is “bad.” This bad is termed by him as “Bad Faith.” Bad faith can be defined as the self-deception or illusion that one does not have the pre-described human condition. Sartre believes that this un-ethical practice stems from the anguish involved with human condition.

Bad faith occurs through the continuous denial of the human condition. Man enters bad faith as an escape from the anguish which can lead man to inaction and the inconsistent unsuccessful attempt in self-deception. The inconsistent denial is one of freedom for one cannot deny and confirm his freedom at the same time for it is a contradiction. This contradiction goes against rationality which is needed for logical judgment that allows one to make a responsible “good” choice.[9]/[10] Sartre put this irrationality as such,

Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by, inventing some determinist doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object. “But why should he not choose to deceive himself?” I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a false-hood, because it is a dissimulation of man’s complete liberty of commitment. Upon the same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, “And what if I wish to deceive myself?” I answer, “There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency itself is that of good faith.”[11]

**Criticisms of Sartrean Ethics ** As stated in the previous section Sartre believes that one sign of “Bad Faith” is the inconsistency in humans that deny the human condition. It is this very term, “inconsistence,” that critics use. His critics believe that Sartre’s human condition is quite inconsistent with morality, ethics, in the ordinary sense. The term “ordinary” may not be the best word in this case. Instead, the term “absolute values” will replace it. Absolute values refer to any ethical system based upon essentialist metaphysics.”[12] In reference to absolute values, Sartre rejects their validity. On the other hand, he accepts the values of authenticity and good faith recommending them and passing moral judgment upon those who live in “bad faith,” reference the quote above.

The criticism is this, that Sartre in declaring that choice defines value then whatever my choice; it is right and never wrong. If this be the case then where in lies the responsibility for my action; it becomes worthless. For if absolute values exist, they presuppose that something ethical is at stake when one makes a choice.[13] Sartre enters into this ideology with his moral judgment of those who participate in “bad faith” leading to a contradiction and lack of consistency.

Likewise, the line of thinking that every choice a man makes is “good” falls into the ideology of moral relativism. For instance if everyman’s choice is in and of itself “good” then how can anything be “bad.” I know that as part of the human condition everyone is responsible for their actions and how they affect everyone else. Most would say this negates the relativist criticism, but according to Sartre only “bad faith” is un-ethical. Hence, if one is knowledgeable and recognizes the human condition then whatever action he takes he believes it to be good, and accepts that it is good for all others. Therefore, if a mass murder who knows and accepts the human condition believes murder is good and good for all others. How then can Sartre say that he is un-ethical? Would Sartre say that mass murder is good? His ideological thought is in response to Hitler’s Nazi regime. Hitler thought what he did was ethically right and good for all Germans for whom he considered the one true race. By in large, this is where one of the inconsistencies lies for if “bad faith” is the only un-ethical action then many atrocities could endure. **Conclusion ** In summation, the ideals of Sartre are in need of further analysis and clarification then what I am able to provide here in this short essay. It is my hope, however, that by this tiny glimpse into the ideologies of Sartre and the criticisms of him you as a philosopher can grow in your own understanding of the world. To summarize Sartre you are what you make yourself to be.

[1]Rau, Catherine. "The Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre." //The Journal of Philosophy// 46.17 (1949): 536-45. //JSTOR//. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. []. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: left;">[2] Sartre, Jean-Paul. //Existentialism and Humanism//. Trans. Philip Mairet (Brooklyn: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1977, pp. 23-56.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 140%;">[3]Wild, John. "Aut﻿hentic Existence." Ethics 75.4 (1965): 227-39. JSTOR. Web. 9 Apr. 2010. [].

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 140%;">[4]Wild, John. "Authentic Existence." Ethics 75.4 (1965): 227-39. JSTOR. Web. 9 Apr. 2010. [].

[5]Wild, John. "Authentic Existence." Ethics 75.4 (1965): 227-39. JSTOR. Web. 9 Apr. 2010. [].

[6]Rau, Catherine. "The Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre." The Journal of Philosophy 46.17 (1949): 536-45. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. [].

[7]Rau, Catherine. "The Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre." The Journal of Philosophy 46.17 (1949): 536-45. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. [].

[8]Lee, Sander H. "The Central Role of Universalization in Sartrean Ethics." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 46.1 (1985): 59-71. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107656>.

[9]Rau, Catherine. "The Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre." The Journal of Philosophy 46.17 (1949): 536-45. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019444>.

[10]Lee, Sander H. "The Central Role of Universalization in Sartrean Ethics." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 46.1 (1985): 59-71. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. []. [11]Lee, Sander H. "The Central Role of Universalization in Sartrean Ethics." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 46.1 (1985): 59-71. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. [].

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 140%;">[12]Foulk, Gary J. "Plantinga's Criticisms of Sartre's Ethics." Ethics 82.4 (1972): 330-33. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. [].

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 140%;">[13]Foulk, Gary J. "Plantinga's Criticisms of Sartre's Ethics." Ethics 82.4 (1972): 330-33. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. [].