As those of you who have been following will probably know, I’ve been reading through Existentialism is a Humanism, an impromptu lecture called by Jean-Paul Sartre to defend his philosophical approach against what he saw as public ignorance and profound misunderstanding, borderline hatred, of his Philosophical works.
(Note that when I refer to ‘man’, I refer to humans. I would use the word human, or humanity, but that has specific meaning in these contexts and I would rather not make it more confusing)
In it, Sartre attempts to counter the claim that Existentialism promotes subjectivity, and that subjectivity results in amorality, that ‘anything goes’. Sartre argues that it is both true and false. First lets examine a story Sartre told.
Earlier in the lecture, Sartre tells a story of a young student of his, who comes to him during the war (1943) and asks for his guidance. The student does not know what to do, his mother needs him, and implies that him being in her life is all that is keeping her going. He does not know whether to stay with her, for her sake, and out of his own emotional attachment and love for her, or to leave France and join up with the Free French Forces in Britain.
The student continues, saying that his choice to stay with his mother is far more concrete and certain, that he is quite sure that the outcome of staying with his mother will be likely positive, and a good thing. He unsure though how joining the Free French will go, whether he will arrive in Spain, looking to travel to Britain, and instead be detained and imprisoned for the rest of the war. Or perhaps succeed and end up in a desk job in Britain, with negligible or questionable impact, with no way to take back his decision.
Sartre’s guidance was short and quite direct. “You are free; So choose”.
Sartre’s response is based on two premises. Sartre believes that he cannot actually give the student moral guidance. First, he believes that you cannot derive action from any current ethical theory, no axiom or rule can actually tell you what to do. YOU must choose, even if you use a moral theory as guidance, YOU must choose so.
Second, the student has already decided what kind of guidance he would like, he already is choosing. When someone looks for guidance, one looks towards some sources and not others. Christians will turn to a priest, because they already believe that their guidance will have value. Similarly, this student had turned to Sartre, who gave him guidance in turn.
Back to Sartre’s response to the criticism that he promotes subjectivity. This is, as we can see, in some sense true. Sartre holds that mans existence precedes essence. That man is fundamentally free, to choose whatever action, there is no God, or concrete objective value that determines action. However, that does not imply the kind of subjectivity that Sartre is being criticized for.
Sartre holds that, while the actions that you take are individual, you take them on behalf of all mankind. When you choose, you choose for all. You essentially declare, this is the right action. This is contrary to a traditional relativist position in Ethics, and Sartre certainly does not advocate relativism, or nihilism. What is right for you is not somehow different than what is right for others. He gives an example of a man choosing to have a kids and family. If he then decides to reject that responsibility, he is through his actions proclaiming that this is just action, and that all men ought to do the same. Note that he is not claiming that it is just. You are free to act, but morality is not subjective, human reality is. Just because God does not exist, or objective meaning is fictitious, does not justify relativism.
A secondary criticism Sartre received was that because of this outlook, existentialists could not judge others, because by what metric or value could they? If there is no objective set of rules with which to point, they could hold people to no standards.
This criticism is perhaps the one that missed the mark by far. Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism does not touch on whether or not he believes Existentialists should talk about moral values as they are traditionally thought of, for example, he does not actually give his personal opinion to the young student as to what decision he should make, precisely because there is no abstract guidance that can help. One must choose, that is all. It is in this choice that morality is realized, a man must make himself. There is no morality outside of choice.
Existentialists like Sartre however, will absolutely judge, not morally, but factually, others who act in bad faith. Bad faith is when one acts in any way that denies or otherwise avoids having to choose. If one blames their decision on circumstance, or bad advice, they are acting in bad faith, because they are pretending that they had not made a choice at all, when in reality the only thing that mattered was their choice, as man is “…condemned to be free”. You have no choice but to choose, so choose.
If a man put a gun to your head and told you to kill someone, or they will kill you, you may very well do what they say. But if you for a second think that it was his choice and not yours, you would most definitely be acting in bad faith. One cannot have their freedom taken away.
For the existentialists, this judgement is simply saying, your reasoning does not make sense, it is impossible for this to be the case, a man chooses, it is the human condition to have choice. You cannot pretend otherwise. This is also why he abstains from giving any moral guidance to his young student.
Sartre’s thoughts on Ethics change throughout his works. His position in Existentialism is a Humanism is quite rudimentary, and he is (quite rightfully) focused much more on explaining Existentialism, so his discussion of ethics focuses mostly on freedom, along side abandonment and anguish, which I have not discussed here.
I’d definitely encourage others to read this text, it’s quite short, but most definitely keep in mind its historical context. It’s an interesting introduction into the ideas, but Sartre himself eventually regretted its publication, and backtracked one some of the ideas presented. It’s particularly easy to follow, but it doesn’t replace a reading of Being and Nothingness if you’re intent is to understand Sartre’s Existentialism.
Place of the White Blog 