Ethics

Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism and Humanism

Sartres key ideas:

Background and context

- Sartre was a philosopher committed to changing the way we think and act
- Sartre wanted his ideas to be accessible to as many people as possible
- The text Existentialism and Humanism is a record of a lecture Sartre gave just
-

after the end of the Second World War

The lecture should really be called Existentialism is a humanism
In this lecture, Sartre abbreviates many important parts so that he can expand
on other parts as well as simplifying his ideas to make them more accessible to

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

move away from existentialism almost completely

Sartres aims
- Existentialism does make human life possible: every truth and every action
-

imply both an environment and a human subjectivity (24-25)

Those that look upon existentialism have too gloomy a view of things and are
not complaining about the supposed pessimism of existentialism but actually its

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

longer means anything at all (27)

Glossary of key ideas
- Phenomenology investigating life from the inside, the experiences of the
conscious mind are all that we can ever really know, and we have an experience
-

of freedom and of choice

Subjectivity and the cogito I think, therefore I am. all genuine philosophical

enquiry must begin with the subjective

Being-in-itself objects with no subjectivity/consciousness/freedom, e.g. a

paperknife
Being-for-itself self-conscious free beings who are able to determine their own

existence, i.e. humans

Existence precedes essence we exist and define ourselves afterwards, humans

are not like the paperknife

Facticity the framework within which we must express our freedom
Atheism there is no God
Anguish the nauseating fear that we have when we realise that we are not only

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
-

one could help him to make his decision

Despair how we feel when we recognise that so much in the world is outside of
our control, feeling of frustration and impotence we have when things are beyond

our control, can lead us to focus on what is within our power

Quietism a reaction to despair which Sartre wanted to avoid, inaction or

apathy, an attitude of surrender to life

Bad faith self-deception, avoiding the truth of our freedom, deliberately acting
as if we are not free, which Sartre condemns this is a logical judgement as

those acting in bad faith are basing their choices on an error

Cowards those who flee from freedom and hide in the pretence that they have

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

committed to action and taking responsibility for our actions

Inter-subjectivity the interdependence of subjective beings, we need other
people to validate and value our own freedom, whilst at the same time they need

us, so we should respect the freedom of other people

Sartres existentialist morality choices are equal to values

Themes of Sartres Existentialism and Humanism:

1. Attack on existentialism
Intention of text is to defend existentialism against some of the criticisms that are

made against, mainly that existentialism is not a humanism

These criticisms include
- Existentialism is pessimistic and encourages inaction and contemplation, which
is a luxury of the middle classes inviting people to dwell in the quietism of
-

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

focusing on the selfish position of the individual

Existentialism is an amoral theory, as it denies the existence of morality, which

makes judgements impossible

Some Christians argue that existentialists deny the realities and seriousness of
human affairs as they ignore the commandments of God and the only rules

that exist are those which are strictly voluntary (24)

2. Foundations of existentialism
Existence precedes essence
- All existentialists begin from the subjective
- For something to have an essence before it exists it must have been designed e.g.

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
-

troops to death, the woman who chooses to hear voices as God

Abandonment realisation that God does not exist and choice is an unavoidable

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

after death, blaming our life on our circumstances

Quietism Sartre rejects this because we are nothing except the sum of our

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
-

create our morality through our choices

When we make a choice we are actually choosing freedom and so we choose

freedom for all humanity

Those people who deny this are either scum or cowards and are living in bad

faith
- Existentialist ethics
4. Defence of existentialism
Existentialism is not as depressing as common wisdom it is actually really positive

in its emphasis on the possibility of freedom

Existentialism does consider other people we are responsible for everyone who

makes the same choices we make

Existentialism is optimistic and encourages action we are totally in control of what

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

rejects bad faith and can make judgements

5. Conclusion
Existential humanism
- Rejection of other types of humanism
- There is no other universe except the human universe
- Humans are absolutely free
- Humans must invent their own moral values
- Moral values lie in our choices, which should be made in the knowledge that we

are free
Existentialism is a humanism that values the potential of people to be free, to make
choices, to invent morality

Ethics

The existence or non-existence of God makes no difference to his theory

Phenomenology:

Different philosophical methods:

- Rationalism rationalists believe that the best way of seeking the truth is to use
-

reason and logic, e.g. Plato and Descartes

Empiricism empiricists say that the best way of seeking the truth is to draw

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

Husserl and was popularised by Heidegger in the 1920s and 1930s

Philosophers who take a phenomenological approach claim that studying the
experiences of the conscious mind is all that we can ever really do, and that

those experiences are all that we can ever really know

Phenomenology is accessible for all people
The main character in Nausea, Roquentin, is keeping a diary which records the
feelings of Nausea that he has started to have he may appear to be losing his
mind a little here, but for Sartre, our analysis of the world must begin with our

experiences and we cannot escape this fact

Using a phenomenological method, Sartre not only analyses what consciousness
is, but also investigates our emotions, our feelings, our experiences/sense data

as sources of information that throw light on our existence

Consciousness
- If we were not conscious at the all the world would be like nothing
- There is a very close relationship between our world, our senses and our
consciousness, as we depend upon our senses and consciousness for vital
-

information about the world around us

A phenomenologist might argue that all we know about the world is what

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

conscious beings, are aware of

Phenomenology is different to empiricism
- Phenomenology takes our consciousness, its activity, and objects, as the
-

beginning and end of philosophy

We are not trying to extrapolate from our experiences to what the world is really

like out there

Look at consciousness as the beginning and the end whereas empiricists believe
that we can use our experiences as a way to gain access to what it is really like

out there in the real world beyond or behind human experience

Criticisms

Ethics
-

As a philosopher who uses phenomenology, Sartre relies upon illustrations,

rather than arguments, in order to convince us of his ideas which has led
philosophers from a more analytic tradition to criticise him for his lack of clear

argument
The English

philosopher

Mary

Warnock

wrote

of

Sartres

method:

Philosophically speaking there is a difference between a description (however

vivid) and proof The novelist or the film director need not observe the differences,
but a philosopher must. It is the death of philosophy if it confuses the true with the
convincing.
The Foundations of Sartres Existentialism:
1. Subjectivity and the cogito
Subjectivity
- The starting point for existentialism is subjectivity
we must begin from the subjective (27)
- This idea of subjectivity is common to both Christian and atheist existentialists
Two senses of subjectivity
- The word subjectivism is to be understood in two senses Subjectivism means,
on the one hand, the freedom of the individual subject and, on the other, that man
cannot pass beyond human subjectivity. It is the latter which is the deeper

meaning of existentialism. (31)

Subjectivity means from a particular and individual point of view, but it also

refers to the conscious and self-conscious experiences of an individual

Both meanings refer to the subject, an individual who is capable of having

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
-

was conscious, and that he existed

The cogito was important found the cogito so important for his philosophy
because it constituted the act of recognising oneself as a necessarily conscious

being
The certainty of the cogito is at the heart of existentialism we must begin with

our subjective experience of the world

For Sartre, the cogito sums up our place in the universe, not only are we
conscious beings, but we are also self-conscious, aware of our own thoughts and

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

possibility of objective knowledge

The idea is that philosophy should begin by examining the individual subject
and what they are capable of knowing, as opposed to the view that philosophy

can begin by looking at the external world

And at the point of departure there cannot be any other truth than this, I think,
therefore I am, which is the absolute truth of consciousness as it attains to itself.

(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

appears to a self-conscious being

Sartre and Descartes share the belief that all genuine philosophical enquiry

must begin with subjectivity

- For Sartre, philosophy begins with our personal encounter with the world, as
self-conscious beings and so objectivity is impossible
- Subjectivity means that we are bound by our own experiences of the world and
we must engage with the world by making choices and committing ourselves to
action
There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human
subjectivity. (67)
- Sartre rejects objectivity and places subjectivity at the heart of philosophy
- We must admit our own personal engagement in the world and our commitment

to it, and so existentialism demands that we act

- Subjectivity is true because we are free and because there is no objectivity
The intentionality of consciousness
- Consciousness must have an object
- All conscious experience is necessarily consciousness of or about something
- In order to think we have to be thinking about something as we can never be
conscious of nothing
- This special quality of consciousness is known as its intentionality
- Consciousness is like an arm, reaching out from your mind towards the world
and grasping objects
- Two types of conscious experiences experiences of things outside of yourself
and experiences of things inside yourself
- We are conscious of two sorts of things, those that are objects, being-in-itself,
and those that are subjects, being-for-itself
Being-in-itself
- We are immediately aware of ordinary objects, e.g. tables, trees, roads etc., as
beings that are independent of our perceiving of them
- Objects of experience that are initially perceived as outside of us, as independent
existences that are resistant to our will
- They are being-in-itself because they just are what they are, brute existents
- Being-in-itself has no subjectivity, no consciousness, no freedom
- Being-in-itself has an essence and a pre-defined nature e.g. the paperknife
- Being-in-itself cannot decide to change or being anything else
- Material objects cannot escape from their past
Being-for-itself
- Humans are being-for-itself

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

negate past experience and consider future paths

Humans are self-surpassing
We can imagine several different futures for ourselves and consider what path we

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
-

they all talk of one thing not being something else

We should not refer to nothingness as a contrast to being, but rather as an

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

artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. (28-29)

Sartre believes that since God does not exist, man simply is man is nothing

else but what he makes of himself. (30)

The second implication of atheism is that if there is no God, there is no inherent
meaning in the world and there are no a priori values
- In Nausea, the main characters realise that everything in the world is
-

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
-

choose: everything would be permitted, even cannibalism

Sartre wrote, Dostoyevsky once wrote, If God did not exist, everything would be

permitted; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point (37)

Sartre more or less admits atheism is irrelevant to his existentialism and that the
main foundations are phenomenological ones
- The key to existentialism is not atheism, it is being free, self-conscious beings
- Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in
demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God
existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe
God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of his existence; 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)

Ethics

Criticisms of Sartres atheism:

- Sartre assumes God does not exist it could be said that Sartre should find a
way of proving his belief and justifying atheism as a foundation to his argument
BUT Sartres only interested in expanding his atheist assumption, not proving or
-

disproving Gods existence

There are many Christian existentialists, e.g. Kierkegaard, which weakens the
paper-knife idea as they believe in God but also about being absolutely free,

which Sartre says both cant be true

4. Existence precedes essence
Humans define their own essence
- Essence = determining its essential nature by finding its essential characteristics
- We have no intrinsic purpose and we just exist
- Existence precedes essence because we are free and because there is no God
- We are free to create our own purpose or essence through our actions
- What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man
first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself
-

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

what his life is. (47)

Since every person has complete possession of themselves and is therefore

completely and utterly responsible for himself

Humans are being-for-themselves rather than being-in-itself
- Unlike being-in-itself, humans are essentially indefinable
- An objects essence comes first and determines the kind of existence they have,
e.g. the paper-knife, which has been made for a particular purpose, therefore its
-

essence precedes its existence

This is important because the knife cannot change its essence and so become

something different
In order for humans to have an essence before their existence, there would have

to be a supernal artisan, a divine creator (28)

The only way in which we would have an essence would be if God has given us
one, yet because our existence precedes our essence you can infer that God does

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
-

this implies that we have an essence

Lack of clarity as Sartre claims that we do not have an essence, but then that we

create our own essence

Is it true that humans do not have an essence? Religious believers would argue
against this principle. We may not be able to know our essence, it does not mean
that we do not have one

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

essence is our freedom

Religious believers argue against the idea that existence precedes essence and so

contradict the basic principle of which existentialism is founded

However, it is important to note that existentialism does not intend on arguing
against the existence of God, rather it merely takes the concept of freedom to its

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

Metaphysical implications of the foundations of existentialism:

Two types of freedom:

- Political this involves being able to participate in the political processes of a
-

country, remaining free from political oppression, e.g. freedom of speech

Political freedom is a value, which humans will fight for if they dont have it
Metaphysical Sartre was concerned with metaphysical freedom, freedom of the

will, which is absolute as we have total control over our action

Metaphysical freedom is a fact, something humans will always have, as part of
our very condition, e.g. even a prisoner in chains can still have metaphysical

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
-

is responsible for everything he does. (38)

What is at the heart and centre of existentialism is the absolute character of the
free commitment, by which every man realises himself in realising a type of

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
-

not choose, that is still a choice. (57)

I am obliged to choose my attitude to [a real situation], and in every respect I
bear the responsibility of the choice which, in commitment myself, also commits

the whole of humanity. (57)

he cannot avoid choosing (57)

Ethics
-

Whatever a person chooses, it is impossible for him, in respect of this situation

[choosing whether to marry and whether to have children], not to take complete

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

and the finished work (58)

We cannot decide a priori what it is that should be done (59)
Man makes himself; he is not found ready-made; he makes himself by the choice
of his morality, and he cannot but choose a morality, such is the pressure of

circumstances upon him. (59)

We cannot make moral judgements
- whenever a man chooses his purpose and his commitment in all clearness and in
all sincerity, whatever that purpose may be it is impossible to prefer another for
-

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

remains always a choice in the situation. (60)

Simone de Beauvoir:
- Wrote The Second Sex
- Argued that women have allowed themselves to be oppressed by men because
they do not realize the basic fact of the human condition that there is no
-

human nature
Women believe that they have an essence that is inferior to men, which is not

true, so they do not need to be oppressed by men

- Women are free to create themselves and must realize this to succeed
- Women are not born, they are made.
Why do people reject their freedom?
- Responsibility freedom brings overwhelming responsibility
- Long term goals there are some things we are able to do but do not consider
because they do not contribute to our long term goals (note we are still free to
-

choose these goals)

Fatigue freedom is exhausting: according to Sartre we are condemned to be

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
-

of freedom, the experience of choice that we face every day

Determinism is a faith to take refuge in (Being and Nothingness), we dont ever

actually experience it in our daily lives

Sartres theory of freedom may therefore even be immune to determinism
Using determinism as an excuse can cause us to live in bad faith
there is no determinism man is free, man is freedom (38)

Criticisms of Sartres claim that we are free:

Ethics

Criticism: we are determined

- Hard determinism because we are determined we cannot have free will, e.g. Ted
-

Honderich who declares that we have absolutely no freedom

We are physical beings that live in a physical world, which is governed by

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

natures are shaped, in a large part by our genes

The feeling of freedom is illusory, e.g. John Lockes example of a man waking up

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

all-knowing God we cannot have freedom (theological determinism)

Sartres response to the criticism of determinism: People who blame their

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

and so have demonstrated their authentic choices

We may have values that mean we want to please our parents, go to university,

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

limitations of constraints have been put upon us by nature or environment

The examples of genetic predispositions do not determine our choices, even if

genetic factors might make some outcomes more unlikely

Criticism: our choices are not unlimited
- We only have a finite amount of choices
- E.g. I could decide to move to Australia, but I do not necessarily have the
-

economic means to make this move a viable choice

E.g. I could decide not to go to medical school, but this would disappoint my

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

condemned to be free (38)

So authentic choices cause us to have existentialist angst, as we worry about

whether we made the right choices

Sartre is not saying that we have unlimited choices, as facticity will play a part,

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

are physically addicted and cannot simply choose to give

Apparently Sartre tried and apparently failed to give up smoking

Ethics

Factors such as intoxication, fear, illness, emotional insecurity or psychopathology

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

dutiful wife, then the possibility of becoming something else is closed

- Not really the place of Sartre to force ideology on different people
Sartre appears to claim that our past choices have no impact on the present options
open to us and that in each moment we choose afresh what we do
- Our past choices have forged a certain path, which not constrains the future

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
-

enough to turn around a life instantly

Sartre confused choice with not refusing
Too harsh in his judgment that people were responsible for all aspects of their
lives, as just because someone is leading a certain kind of life does not mean

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

means they are not necessarily responsible for their Christianity

It seems as if Sartre may have overstated his case for absolute freedom

Facticity:

Should not confuse freedom with omnipotence

To say that we have absolute freedom is not to say that we have the power to

anything and everything

The limits of freedom, i.e. our facticity, are all the facts that are true of us but that
we cannot choose to change, e.g. our place of birth, our parents, our sex, the
language we were brought up to speak, the culture we were brought up in, the laws

of physics
One aspect of our facticity is that we are being-for-itself, that we do not have an

essence and that we are free: Man is condemned to be free. (38)

Sartres paradox of freedom: We are free but we are not free to reject our freedom
We have to accept that freedom has limits and that there are plenty of things we
cannot choose

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

choices we make in life

Freedom needs facticity, as we cannot act or choose in a vacuum, rather we need

concrete circumstances against which we can act

Facticity limits the choices available to us but does not limit our freedom
Having a specific context can make our actions more meaningful because they gain

a direction and a focus

Might say that our facticity gives us a set of obstacles that limits our freedom, but in
order for us to encounter obstacles in the first place, we must be free, i.e. in order to

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

of us our individual context our past

For Sartre, the things we have done in the past are a part of our facticity, as we may
choose to react against our past, but we are not free to go back and change what we

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

physical beings, and so the emphasis should be on physical freedom

Sartres point is that the prisoners facticity never actually determines what he
thinks, and he would argue that the attitude that we take to our situation is always

within our power

Our attitude to life is an important choice, which can motivate us to action or lead

us to the quietism of despair

BUT what is metaphysical freedom worth if someones possible choices are severely

limited by, although not allegedly determined by, their facticity

What is the point of mental freedom if we have no control over our physical situation
how relevant is mental freedom to all people or even insensitive to some people,
e.g. those in absolute poverty, those who are severely disabled

Emotional and ethical implications of Sartres existentialism:

1. Anguish and responsibility (33-36)
Sartre shows that living with the reality of our absolute freedom is not easy
With this freedom comes the realisation that we are responsible not only for own
actions but for the whole of humanitys: Our responsibility is much greater than

we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole (32)

When we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is

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

fear of freedom is anguish

The existentialist frankly states that man is in anguish (33)
What do we mean by anguish?... When a man commits himself to anything, fully
realising that he is not only choosing what he will be, but is thereby at the same time
a legislator deciding for the whole of mankind in such a moment a man cannot
escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility. (33)

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

realise it is up to us how to continue with our lives

Every man ought to say Am I really a man who has the right to act in such a manner
that humanity regulates itself by what I do. If a man does not say that, he is

dissembling his anguish. (35)

Anguish doesnt prevent us from acting; it is the condition of action itself (36)
Anguish is inevitable and this is why the action has value because it has been

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

except by a kind of self-deception (33)

Sartre refers to the anguish of Abraham (34) Abraham has to make a choice and

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

which can support us in this cruel world

When we speak of abandonment we only mean to say that God does not exist,
and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end.

(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

accident, completely pointless)

Our first reaction to world is one of disgust at its meaningless when we recognise the
pointlessness of existence for the first time, and this disgust is replaced by the

overwhelming feeling of abandonment

Abandonment is really a metaphor to reflect the revelation that our belief in God is
wrong as for atheists there was never really a God in the first place to abandon us,
and although God never existed, we still feel deeply the loss of the security brought
about by the idea of God

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

and perfect consciousness to think it. (37)

Abandonment means that we no longer have any moral commandments to guide us

through our lives therefore we are free to choose anything

Dostoyevsky once wrote If God did not exist, everything would be permitted; and
that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God
does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to

depend upon either within or outside himself. (37)

Sartre believes that ultimately it falls to the individual to overcome our feelings of

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

responsible for everything he does. (37)

Nothing can help us make a decision: man himself interprets the sign as he chooses

(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

the dilemma of choosing his mother or the French resistance

Sartre uses the example of his pupil with the dilemma over whether to join the
resistance movement
- It is up to the pupil to determine for himself, independently of any advice or
-

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

one. Nor is it given in any ethical scripture. (40-41)

Even if we us ethical theories e.g. Christian, Kantian or Utilitarian ethical
theories for guidance, ultimately we have to interpret the theory and decide in

what way it applies for us and this itself is a choice

Cannot appeal to our affections to decide how to act because our affections are
determined by how we act: feeling is formed by the deeds that one does; therefore

I cannot consult it as a guide to action (42)

It is also hard to distinguish between a true sentiment and a pretence
If you choose to seek advice, you are choosing whose advice to take, e.g. a priest
Choosing an advisor means you already committing yourself to a line of action
because at bottom you already knew, more or less, what he would advise to

choose an adviser is nevertheless to commit oneself by that choice. (42-43)

For Sartre, all our moral values are invented in the choices and actions we take
- I can neither seek within myself for an authentic impulse to action, nor can I
-

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

is what abandonment implies, that we ourselves decide our being. (44)

You are responsible for your choices as nothing else can make that choice for
you you choose whose advice to take, you choose how to interpret the signs,

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

freely choosing to follow that guidance

- Any attempt to escape our freedom is an act of self-deception bad faith
3. Despair and quietism: (44-51)
Through time, we learn to suppress our frustration that sometimes the world doesnt

work in our favour, and this is a feeling of despair

As for despair. The meaning of this expression is extremely simple. It merely means

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

attitude towards our lack of control in the world

Alongside the realisation that not everything is in control, despair implies realising

that there is no God to help us

We should commit ourselves to what we can do, rather than what we cannot do
Descartes: Conquer yourself rather than the world, we should act without hope,

and focus on what we can do (45)

Marxists have argued that individual actions are limited ultimately by death, but
you can rely upon the help of others to achieve your goals after your death, e.g. final
accomplishment of revolution
- You can count upon your comrades-in-arms in as much as theyre committed to
a common cause with the unity of the group can be controlled and known by the
individual- you can rely upon this possibility as much as a tram not being
derailed

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

they cannot do anything

Christians imply that despair means giving up on ones life, however for Sartre, it
has the opposite implication: And if by despair one means as the Christians do
any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is something different
[Existentialism] is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confounding

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

unbearable, causing us to become apathetic this state is referred to as quietism

Quietism is the belief that if we cannot control the world, we may as well give up
Sartre condemns this theory, because he believes we are the sum of our actions if

we have achieved nothing, we are nothing

Quietism is linked to the idea of bad faith, where people feel they are helpless in

their situation, and desire a change but do nothing about it

It involves a denial of freedom
The combination of the two ideas means we can recognise what we can do, whilst at

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

success of his life. (48)

We should live in despair but we should not resort to quietism, rather we should and

commit and act: there is no reality except in action (47)

For there is no God and no prevenient design, which can adapt the world and all its

possibilities to my will (45)

Facing reality of atheism and freedom
BUT Sartre, again, assumes the position of atheism but is not concerned with

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

humans have absolute freedom

Man is nothing else by what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises
himself, he is therefore nothing else but what his life is (47)

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

works of art (48)

The works of famous artists, e.g. Proust or Racine, should be attributed to their
individual efforts rather than the idea they have the capacity to to write another

tragedy when that is precisely what he did not write (48)

Man is the sum, organisation and the set of relations of his activities: You are

nothing else but what you live (49)

Therefore people reproach existentialists not because they are seen to be pessimists

but the sternness of our optimism (49)

4. Bad faith: (50-63)
Bad faith = mauvaise foi = self-deception
Denial about consequences of our freedom and is the wrong attitude to our freedom
Bad faith represents our failure to live our lives in the right kind of way
Sartre claims that we are actually aware of this freedom all the time because we are
always subject to a kind of anguish, but sometimes we do not feel anguish, because
we pretend not to notice it, by deliberately deceiving ourselves about the extent of

our freedom
We evade the terrible responsibility of having to make decisions about our lives and

we simply follow the rules

It is much simpler to pretend that we have an essence but Sartre thinks that he has
shown that we are free, that we have no essence and that we are deluding ourselves

by pretending to have one

Eight ways in which Sartre thinks we can fall into bad faith
a) Anguish leads to bad faith
- We feel anguish when we realise the full extent of our responsibility, not just for
-

us, but for the whole of humanity

one [cannot] escape from that disturbing thought except by a kind of self-

deception (33)
We can avoid anguish by pretending that we are not responsible for our actions,

by finding excuses and by blaming others

b) Cowards and scum are in bad faith
- The two common types of people who deliberately live in the denial of their
-

freedom are the cowards and the scum

I can form judgements upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly
voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom. Those who hide from
this total freedom, in a guise of solemnity or with deterministic excuses, I shall call
cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary, when it is
merely an accident of the appearance of the human race on earth I shall call

scum. (62-63)
Cowards flee from their freedom and responsibility by hiding in the pretence that

they have an essence and that they are being-in-itself

Scum think they are necessary beings, rather than acknowledging they are

merely contingent/accidental, thinking world revolves around you, arrogant

Both cowards and scum are inauthentic

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

by determining factors, psychic or organic (49)

Existentialists however say that if a person is a coward then theyre responsible
for their own cowardice, so we cannot blame our facticity for who we are or who
we become a person is a coward because they have made themselves into a

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

hereditary, so a coward is defined by the deed that he has done (50)

People would prefer to be born as a hero or a coward, as it would relieve
individuals of any obligation to feel like they should or could be doing something
else: if you are born cowards, you can be quite content, you can do nothing about

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

cowardice and for the hero to stop being heroic (51)

In Being and Nothingness Sartre seems to imply that deep down all of us are in
bad faith, because all of us wish to believe that we have some kind of essence
Four types of coward
o Some people choose to live according to the past and see themselves as
o

having a fixed personality, which limits their options

Some people refuse to step outside of the roles that others have cast for
them, trying to satisfy others when they should be thinking about what they

can freely do
Some people absorb themselves in the tiny details of life and are not engaged

in their actions which are mere superficial gestures

Some people pretend that they are just an object, a being-in-itself, and that

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

are things or that we are objects.

For Sartre, even a refusal to act or to choose is still a choice, and so the woman,

by leaving her hand where it is, is making a choice.

We cannot ignore the responsibility we have for the actions of our bodies as they

are our actions and to pretend otherwise is bad faith

Scum are those people who think of their existence as necessary as opposed to

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

were destined to rule the world

c) Blaming our actions on our emotions is bad faith

Ethics
-

Sartre seems to imply that it can never be possible for our emotional state to

directly cause our actions

But this is very controversial as we hold in law that emotions can count for

mitigating circumstances
For example, feelings of grief or abuse may lead to an extreme action for which

we are not later held fully responsible for

- Yet Sartre believes that we are responsible for our emotions or passions
d) Believing that our life or actions are determined is bad faith
- Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice any many who
takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic
-

doctrine, is a self-deceiver. (60)

Determinism is the view that every event is cause by prior events
Some argue that we are determined by our genetics, the physical laws of the

universe, our upbringing or socio-economic class, etc.

Sartre would say that we believe these things in order to avoid the anguish of

choice and responsibility

A person is not born a coward, and is not a coward because of a cowardly heart

or lungs cowardice is not determined by an essential part of the person

The reason why someone is called a coward is because of the cowardly things

they have done, and we are the sum of our actions

e) Blaming our circumstances is bad faith
- A good excuse for why we have failed to do something is to blame our situation
- Sartres character says that Circumstances have been against me, I was worthy
to be something much better than I have been if I have not written any very good
-

books, it is because I had not the leisure to do so. (47-48)

For Sartre, circumstances are no excuse
The reason why this person is not a writer is because they have chosen not to

write anything and has blamed their situation for this

We must accept full responsibility for all of our previous decisions which have led

f)
-

to our present situation

Using signs as an excuse is bad faith
People sometimes feel that there are signs in the world which tell them what to

do and guide them through their lives

Sartre says choose to interpret things in the world as signs and we choose to

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
-

wrong advice then we are in and faith

We have a number for people to whom we can turn for advice but we choose

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

following their advice

h) Belief in objective morality is bad faith
- We are completely free and there is no God
- So to pretend that we are bound by a moral law is to deceive ourselves
Problems with Sartres concept of bad faith
- What is wrong with someone consciously choosing to act in bad faith, choosing
-

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

admittance, does not exist

Sartre reveals that he is not making a moral but a logical judgement, attacking
the for basing their actions on an error the mistake is to base our belief on
something we know to be false: 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. (60-61)

For self-deception to work, we must persuade ourselves to believe something that
we think is not true but that does not seem possible, so if bad faith is a type of
self-deception, then we have to pretend that we are not free when we know that

in fact we are
Perhaps bad faith is better known as mistaken faith, we are putting our faith in

a belief which deep down we know is wrong

James changing your life dramatically is not a live option, and so is not a

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

behaviour of bad faith are ones we ought to avoid

5. Authenticity:
Authenticity or good faith is Sartres answer to how one should avoid living in bad
faith it can be seen as Sartres new moral framework with authentic/inauthentic

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

continually creating yourself

Authenticity is therefore being aware of our freedom, committed to action, taking

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

else but what his life is. (47)

There needs to be within the existentialist the absolute character of the free
commitment where every person realises themselves within that realises a type of
humanity (55)

Ethics

There is no difference between free being being as self-committal, as existence

choosing tis essence and absolute being. (56)
We cannot but will our freedom
- I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other
-

end and aim but itself (61)

In making a choice, we much choose in recognition of our freedom
the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of

freedom itself as such (61)

he is a free being who cannot but will his freedom, at the same I realise that I

cannot not will the freedom of others (62)

We must be authentic: The one thing that counts, is to know whether the invention is

made in the name of freedom. (63)

Sartre says we should live in good faith or authenticity, which is acting in the
complete recognition that we have absolute freedom, and taking complete

responsibility of our actions

Living an authentic life is the best way of living in Sartres view as you are not
deceiving yourself into believing that you have a pre-determined personality or

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

from freedom and responsibility

Within his fiction he introduces characters who live their lives rejecting the
responsibility they have to act on their freedom and instead they act in an immoral
way, thinking that this is what freedom brings, but they are merely acting against an
objective morality that does not exist, e.g. some commit suicide to show how futile it

is to live in a meaningless world

6. Other people and inter-subjectivity: (53-63)
Other people
- In Existentialism and Humanism Sartre gives a positive account of our
-

relationships with other people

As being-for-itself we are conscious of other consciousnesses: it is not only ones

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

of the self leads to the discovery of everyone else too (53)

In E&H Sartre also claims that we rely on other people to recognise ourselves
and our freedom: he recognises that he cannot be anything unless others

recognise him as such (53)

I cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation
of another. (53)

Ethics
-

However, previously in B&N he had focused on the worst aspects of our

relationships with other people

Sartre suggests that when we first encounter other people (The Other) we see

them as objects, and we try to give people an essence but we cannot

We cannot control other people because they do not have an essence, therefore,
when we become aware of other people, we realise that there is a perspective

upon the world which we ourselves cannot see

The Other constitutes a problem for us because, when we look at each other, we
try to objectify the other person, and each person tries to possess the others

freedom without relinquishing their own - No Exit: Hell is other people.

- BUT does this leave room for positive relationships with people
Inter-subjectivity
- In E&H Sartre no longer claims that we try to possess other peoples freedom,
-

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,

but also committing all of humanity to the practice of monogamy (32)

Each persons decision therefore means they are responsible for many people
and the values they believe we should all adopt: I am thus responsible for myself
and for all men, and I creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be.

In fashioning myself I fashion man. (33)

Man is not only responsible for his own actions but for all men- by this many
have thought that this means when a person makes a decision he does so

because he thinks/knows all men would do the same as him

Our subjectivity depends on recognition by other people: I cannot obtain any
truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another. The other
is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have of

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

us and find that they cannot define us

Therefore it implies that we would not know about our subjectivity or our

freedom without the existence of other people to recognise it in us

From our knowledge of inter-subjectivity we can infer that we value other

peoples freedom because they value outs

The intimate discovery of myself is at the same time the revelation of the other as
a freedom which confronts mine, and which cannot think or will without doing so
either for or against me. Thus, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let
us say, that of inter-subjectivity. (53)

Ethics
-

It is in this world [of inter-subjectivity] that man has to decide what he is and

what others are (53)

In willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of

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

would not value it at all

If we depend upon other people to value our freedom, then we value their
freedom because it is only their freedom that makes it possible for us to value
ours: I am obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as mine. I cannot
make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. (62)

Sartres existentialist ethics:

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

respect the freedom of others).

Sartre rejects conventional morality
- Conventional moral theories make a claim to objectivity which is unjustifiable
- People who feel obliged to follow conventional morality are living in bad faith
- Therefore existentialist ethics is surely a contradiction in terms? Existentialism
and ethics cannot go together
An objective morality is impossible
- Phenomenological approach means that all we have our own experiences of the
-

world
Even if there are a set of objective rules out there we could never know what

these are, as we cannot go beyond our own experiences

Therefore, an objective morality is impossible, as it cannot be known or grasped

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
-

with the same situation would act differently

Dilemma put forward by Sartre: What to do about a man with whom they are

passionately in love but who is already engaged to another woman?

Maggie Tulliver would let her lover marry the woman to whom he was engaged,
and so instead of seeking her own happiness, she chooses in the name of human

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

little goose he was engaged to marry (64)

Sartre argues that one person has not done something right and the other
something wrong, because they both act authentically by freely creating their

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

any objective morality

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. (61)
- Doing the right thing should be a natural thing and not forced on yourselves
- We choose rules they are not imposed on us
- People who follow moral rules are living in bad faith
- The most horrific examples of this are the excuses of German soldiers and

citizens who worked in concentration camps during WWII

Criticisms
- On the one hand Sartre argues that we cannot make moral judgements because
-

there is no objective morality

On the other hand Sartre makes a moral judgement by condemning people for

living in bad faith and calling them cowards or scum

Sartre argues that he is not making a moral judgement but a logical judgement

or a judgement of truth
On the other hand Sartre makes a moral judgement by condemning people for

living in bad faith and calling them cowards or scum

Sartres first account of an existentialist morality:
- When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must
choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses
for all men Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it
concerns mankind as a whole. (31-32)

Ethics
-

Similar to Kants principle of universalizability

Sartre is asking: what would happen if everyone did this?
Uses Kants terminology, e.g. Sartre argues that someone making a choice is not
only choosing for himself but is thereby at the same time a legislator deciding for

the whole of mankind. (33)

- This is similar also to the Golden Rule treat others as youd like to be treated
1. There are no objective moral values
- Without God there are no absolute or objective values
- it is nowhere written that the good exists, that one must be honest or must not
-

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

can show you what you ought to do. (43)

BUT philosophers such as Aristotle and Mill would argue that an objective

morality is still possible without God

2. Choices are identical with values
- to choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that
-

which is chosen (32)

Only valid if you accept the first premise that there are no objective moral values
When we make our individual choices, we are in the process of constructing our

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

other people should find valuable

4. Therefore a choice is a choice for everyone
- in choosing for himself, he chooses for all men (31)
- Whilst making decisions consider the consequences of your actions upon others
- Our choices are choices which we make for all of humanity
- BUT binding promises should not be applicable to all people, e.g. marriage
- Sartres message varies depending on the passages; in some he implies our
-

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

deciding for the whole of mankind (33)

5. I must accept responsibility for my choices
- In any case, and whichever he may choose, it is impossible for him, in respect of
-

this situation, not to take complete responsibility. (57)

BUT we have diminished responsibility because of determinism, e.g. Loeb and

Leopold case, mental illness

Ted Honderich argued that due to hard determinism, we are not free and
therefore have no moral responsibility

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

like other people to act

- We literally choose for others and we are literally responsible for others
- BUT this can lead to existential angst
- BUT this implies that everyone else is living in bad faith
Sartres second account of an existentialist morality
- Found towards the end of his lecture
- In this account, Sartre places freedom, rather than universalizability, at the
-

heart of an existentialist ethics

When we will our own freedom, we must at the same time actively will the

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

freedom as the foundation of all values. (61)

Sartre thinks that we must value the freedom of others because of
- Inter-subjectivity and authenticity to be consistent and in good faith, we must
-

value the freedom of others equally to our own

Universalising freedom we are all equally free
Our freedom does not occur in a vacuum we interact with others
To place a higher value on our own freedom implies that we are intrinsically

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

respect the freedom of others

We are all essentially free to create our own essence; we may choose to live in

bad faith
Mary Warnocks interpretation of Sartres existentialist morality
- Existentialism is a moral theory because it demands that we take a certain
-

attitude to the world

We should value the freedom of others because we are universalising freedom
When we choose a particular action we also will the freedom that enables us to

make that choice

Therefore, when we make a free choice, we are also choosing freedom for the

whole of humanity
We want the option/opportunity of making a choice rather than actually wanting

everyone to make the exact same choices

This interpretation of Sartre appears to make more sense, e.g. Sartres marriage
example can now mean that in choosing marriage we are not choosing marriage

for all, but the freedom to get married for all

For example, in choosing abortion one is not choosing abortion for all, but the
choice of abortion for all, i.e. freedom means that abortion should be an option
for everyone

Ethics
-

Although this interpretation seems preferable it is not without problems, as

equally we could say in choosing to steal or lie we are not choosing this for all
but the freedom to do this for all, BUT in reality in reality we would not want all

people to be free to steal/lie, so we would not do this ourselves

Sartres Ethics of Authenticity
- Linda Bell describes Sartres ethics as an ethic of authenticity
- She argues that Sartre is advocating that we should act in an authentic way

Existentialism is a humanism:

The optimism of existentialism

- Cannot be seen as philosophy of quietism as it defines man by his actions
- no doctrine is more optimistic, the destiny of man is placed within himself (51)
- It is only in doing the action that there is hope
- Existentialism can be seen as an ethic of action and self-commitment (51)
Existentialism is positive due to its emphasis on the possibility of human freedom

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

man as the end, since man is still to be determined (66)

Man is in charge of himself: Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting
and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist it is by pursuing

transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. (66-67)

Man is self-surpassing grasping things only in relation to this, which means that

he is himself the heart and centre of his transcendence (67)

Existential humanism: The only universe that exists is the human universe, the

universe of human subjectivity (67)

This is humanism, because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself;
that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that
it is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim
which is one of liberation or of some particular realisation, that man can realise

himself as truly human. (67)

Existentialism is not atheist in so much as it would extensively try to prove that God
doesnt exist but that even if God existed that would make no difference from its

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)

In this sense existentialism is optimistic, it is a doctrine of action, and it is only by

self-deception, by confusing their own despair with ours that Christians can describe
us as without hope. (68)