Sartre's Defense of Existentialism - Essay Example

? Sartre’s Defense of Existentialism Why do we do the things we do? Do we do these things for a reason or do we dothis because of a principle on which we believe our actions and decisions must be based? The 20th century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre believed that these a priori principles did not exist and that, in whatever situation man is in, he is left alone to make a choice and that this is his freedom. This is the point of Sartre’s existentialism. It is then expected that with such a philosophy, people begin asking “So, it does not matter what you do?” or where does God or rules fit into this philosophy? The accusations and objections are relentless. Nevertheless, Sartre’s response to the objection that his existentialism makes all choice arbitrary is not only good but also sensible. Sartre interprets the objection that confronts him and his existentialism – “It does not matter what you do” – in three ways: “First they tax us with anarchy; then they say, ‘You cannot judge others, for there is no reason for preferring one purpose to another’; finally, they may say, ‘Everything being merely voluntary in this choice of yours, you give away with one hand what you pretend to gain with the other’” (Sartre 13). The first objection – the idea that “they tax us with anarchy” – translates as “to say that it does not matter what you choose is not correct” (14). Sartre then responds to this objection by using logic: “If I do not choose, that is still a choice” and one therefore “cannot avoid choosing” (14). To this, Sartre adds the idea that “it is impossible for [one]…not to take complete responsibility for making a choice” (14). The people who object Sartre’s existentialism tell him one thing – that there must be some definite law that governs decision-making and that true free will does not exist. For example, they may argue that when a man comes face to face with a lion, then the idea of free will is somehow overridden by the instinct to run, and therefore one can say that there is no free choice in such a situation. Free choice, for these people who oppose Sartre, may only be confined to everyday decisions about petty things such as which clothes to wear and which food to eat. Nevertheless, how Sartre responds to them is not only good but also sensible in that logic tells us that when one flees from a lion, then one definitely still makes a choice – the choice of fleeing. Although the idea of instinct may somehow seem to negate free choice in this particular situation, it actually does not because the only thing visible is the choice to flee for whatever basis there is to it. Whether there is a basis for such a choice or not, for Sartre, it is not important and that one’s choice may be “determined by no a priori value” (14), and can therefore be an irrational one. Others may partly agree that an action such as fleeing a lion is indeed a choice but they would then require reason for it, or something a priori on which the choice must be based. Nevertheless, Sartre is sensible enough to say that not all choices may be based on anything a priori such as reason. Why? What is the problem with having an a priori basis for a choice? Sartre explains this through the story of a pupil of his who has chosen to live with his mother instead of fighting the enemy (7). Those people who object to Sartre’s existentialism believe that there must be a basis to every choice, but they do not recognize that whatever basis they use, it is still they who make that choice of using that basis, as Sartre contends. Sartre’s method of refuting this objection is excellent: he explains the vagueness of the Christian doctrine as well as Kant’s Categorical Imperative if these two established doctrines were used as an a priori principle on which the young man’s decision must be based. Sartre points out that although the Christian doctrine teaches one to “act with charity,” it does not clearly say to whom one should act with charity (7). Moreover, although the Christian doctrine commands one to “choose the way which is hardest,” it does not clearly state which of the two or more choices of way it is (7). Kant does the same thing with the Categorical Imperative: although it says, “Never regard another as a means, but always as an end,” it does not exactly say what to do in case regarding one object as an end would be tantamount to regarding the other as a mere means. Through this exposition of the weaknesses of these two doctrines, Sartre successfully defends his existentialism and idea of free will and choice against those who say that choice must have an a priori basis. It is true that the Christian doctrine and the Categorical Imperative describe how one should act but the decision to act is still one that is governed by the individual’s choice. Sartre’s second response to those who defend an a priori moral system is also good and sensible. Sartre uses an analogy to explain his point – a painter who paints a picture. Although there are rules about how to paint a picture, “no one can tell what the painting of tomorrow will be like” and “one cannot judge a painting until it is done” (14). Therefore, no one can judge what kind of painting is right until one has begun painting a picture. It is not that existentialism is based on the consequences of an action like utilitarianism but that it seeks to prove that “there are no aesthetic values a priori” (14). After successfully refuting those who glorify the role of a priori principles in making choices, Sartre responds to those who say, “You are unable to judge others” (15). Moral judgment, according to Sartre, is a part of the freedom of a person, which is “the foundation of all values” (15). Moreover, the judgment one has of his fellow is not necessarily a judgment of value but a “logical judgment” and that he has the freedom to do it (14). Those who oppose Sartre also oppose his theory of this rather “absolute” notion of freedom. They say that this freedom is evil, that this freedom cannot be born of a free choice, and that it contradicts the idea of absolute morality. Sartre successfully refutes these accusations by logically objecting to each one. First, to those who say that freedom is evil, Sartre responds by saying that “as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own” (16). Sartre therefore explains that those who truly choose freedom for themselves would naturally choose the same for others, and so what is morally wrong with that? At the same time, he also implies that those who have chosen bondage for themselves in the form of absolute morals would want others to be shackled too. Next, to the determinists who believe that freedom is not a choice, Sartre calls them “cowards,” and to those who believe in the necessity of things, Sartre calls them “scum” (16). Although this seems to be an impolite way of treating these people, Sartre’s calling them names somehow implies that there is no way he can convince them of the truth about freedom. He therefore resigns himself and calls these people names. It is like meeting a pastor of 50 years and telling him he is free to do whatever he wants even without God’s permission. This pastor may vehemently oppose the notion of existential freedom but perhaps no amount of effort from Sartre would be able to convince him of the freedom he exercised in choosing to cling to his religion. Lastly, to those who steadfastly cling to the idea of an absolute morality, Sartre repeats the case of his young pupil. This defense of his existentialism and the notion of freedom was good and sensible. Sartre then goes on to refute the third part of the objection: “You take with one hand what you give with the other,” which the French philosopher translates as “Your values are not serious, since you choose them yourselves” (17). These are the people who accuse Sartre of atheism and subjectivism. These people say that since man simply chooses which to believe then these choices must be subjective and must therefore be substandard. It is like anarchy and chaos in a free-for-all world. These accusers of Sartre are akin to someone who is upset because everyone at school just wears whatever they want when they “SHOULD” be wearing a uniform. But Sartre would respond by asking, “Who in the world said they should wear a uniform anyway?” For Sartre, “there is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity” (17). Going back to the analogy of the school uniform, no one has the right to label the idea of not wearing a uniform as bad or not serious simply because it is not objective. What is “objective” anyway and how does one know something is “objective” since the moment he knows it, it has already passed through his subjective mind? Sartre, although he does not exactly say in his speech, therefore does not believe in the idea of objectivity. Everything is subjective and thus, all our values must be based on this. In saying this, Sartre also implies that everything else we have known as “objective” is nothing but merely subjective. Sartre’s defense of subjectivity is nevertheless successful and good. The last group of people whose sentiments Sartre humbly opposes is the group that equates Sartre’s existentialism as atheism. To these people, Sartre explains that existentialism does not seek to prove or disprove God’s existence but that it seeks to declare that “even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view” (18). Besides, Sartre, in saying that man finds “not even a valid proof of the existence of God,” believes that even the belief in the existence of God is born out of mere freedom of choice (18). All the proofs of the existence of God are somehow a result of choosing to prove that God exists. Furthermore, Sartre is right – who can say that there are valid proofs of God’s existence and what is “valid” anyway but something that is merely interpreted by the subjective human brain? Through the use of sharp logic, Sartre is able to successfully defend his existentialism from all its opponents. Nevertheless, despite Sartre’s good and sensible refutations to the opinions of those who oppose his existentialism, there may be a number of objections to the arguments. One objection is that Sartre and other existentialists may not believe in the existence of a priori principles but that these principles MAY exist whether or not Sartre believes in their existence or not. It is true that a priori principles may actually exist even if Sartre does not believe in their existence. Nevertheless, even if these exist, the fact remains that it is still up to man to make a choice in every situation. A priori principles may fully describe which way is right but they cannot specifically point out in every moral situation which way is the right one. Thus, man’s choice remains as the final arbiter. Another objection is on the idea of free will – truly no one is free for Sartre himself says, “Nothing remains but to trust in our instincts” (8), and so we are not totally free, as Sartre contends, because our “free” choices are simply directed or governed by instinct. Although this objection may in fact sound plausible, this is simply a problem of semantics. “Instinct,” in the context that Sartre uses it, must refer to the self or that part of man that is capable of making a choice regardless of a priori principles, like the Christian doctrine and the Categorical Imperative, whose existence, as Sartre points out, is merely hypothetical. There is therefore no conflict in the aforementioned statement. Instinct is equal to man’s ability to make a choice and this ability is free and not dependent on anything else. A third objection is that absolute freedom and subjectivity must necessarily produce chaos and anarchy and the eventual destruction of society. Although this objection somehow seeks to assess the practical value of Sartre’s existentialism, the fact remains that existentialism is not utilitarianism, where the greatest good of the greatest number of people is always taken into consideration. For Sartre, therefore, although he may not have directly stated it, if man’s choice – which is the voice of all freedom – eventually seeks the destruction of the world and the human race, then what can we do? This is not a problem for Sartre and the existentialists but may be a big problem to the “scum” who believes a priori that humans MUST exist. One last objection is that God must have a role in an individual’s choices and it is possible that Sartre and every other existentialist simply do not realize this. Although this may be true, it remains that unless God tells a man exactly what to do, then He does not have a role in an individual’s decision-making process. Divine guidance or inspiration is often considered by theists as that part that God plays in human life but it may actually only be human choice. Furthermore, even if God actually existed, even if God actually told someone what to do or even if divine guidance were actually the voice of God, man still had to make a choice whether to follow God or not. Indeed, Sartre’s response to the objection that his existentialism makes all choice arbitrary – that it does not matter what you do – is not only good but also sensible. Sartre uses sharp logic and analogies to respond to those who firmly believe that choices must be based on a priori principles, to those who believe that freedom of choice is evil, and to those who accuse his existentialism as a form of atheism. Using sharp logic and analogies, Sartre emphasizes the theory that man’s freedom of choice overrides every circumstance – which means that, whatever the circumstances are and whatever doctrines are firmly established, man is still left alone to make a choice. Objections to Sartre’s argument include those who maintain that a priori principles and God may exist although Sartre’s existentialism negates these. Nevertheless, although these may exist, it is still man who decides whether to follow what these principles or what God says. Another objection is that Sartre’s existentialism may promote anarchy, but, although it does not directly do so, the question of anarchy is a concern of utilitarianism and not existentialism. Overall, all objections cannot withstand Sartre’s use of logic and thus he has successfully defended the substantiality of his existentialism. Works Cited Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre. Ed. Walter Kaufman. Trans. Philip Mairet. Meridian Publishing Company, 1989. Web. 5 Dec 2011. Read More