30 Jan '06 02:29>
“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
I believe that Sartre is correct and that man is “thrust into” existence. After all, did you ask to be born? Was it your hope, desire, or aspiration to live the human experience? You may well tell me that being born was a boon, but I promise you that you reached that conclusion only after you first grappled with the mere state of existing, of being. At first, I struggled with Sartre’s statement that “existence precedes and rules essence” because I think it is clear that upon accepting this statement, one is flat-out rejecting the possibility that absolute moral values exist. If you accept that existence precedes essence, then absolute moral values cannot exist because you are denying the notion that man has any sort of predetermined nature; as a result, you are denying that there exists any unchanging moral code that delineates what a man necessarily ought to be.
This is hard to swallow because it leads to the conclusion attributed (wrongly??) to Dostoevsky that “…everything would be permitted.” Indeed, if absolute moral values do not exist, then you must be prepared to entertain the notion of a perfectly possible world in which, eg., The Holocaust would be just fine and dandy, or in which murder, rape, and genocide would all be morally permissible. Whether or not this possible world may ever actually obtain is irrelevant: the point is that you must concede that such a world is indeed possible, conceivable. That is very disheartening, and Sartre well captures this feeling or forlornness when he writes that man is “condemned to be free”:
“Dostoevsky once wrote ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. [Commentary added by LemonJello: please note, however, that existentialism does not necessarily imply atheism.] 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. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's actions in reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exists, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimate our behaviour. This we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. 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 that he does.”
I think many people (a vast majority??) would say that objective moral values do exist and that such “possible” worlds as I described above are not possible at all. I disagree and would rather say that such worlds are possible but extraordinarily unlikely. But then the question is: if indeed everything is possibly permissible, then why are such possible worlds so unlikely? Well, as Sartre says, one exists and then defines himself. And I think that the initial process of learning to exist and coexist as a human necessarily imbues one with a certain mindset that affects the subsequent process of defining oneself. In particular, I think that one learns that acting rationally and in accordance with certain deontological principles promotes existence. In particular, Kant presents a coherent case that one is only acting rationally when one adheres to certain deontological principles. These deontological principles basically collapse into the “golden rule” and an unwavering respect for the autonomy of others, which most people agree is more or less common sense. But note that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” says nothing of absolute morality. It is an unchanging deontological principle, but if anything it reflects the fact that what a person would desire to be done unto them need not be absolute in any sense of the word. However, since a common goal of each human is perpetuating his own existence, it seems only natural that the way in which one would desire to be treated by others should necessarily be consonant with a state of perpetuating existence. Thus, the aforementioned possible worlds are very unlikely indeed if people act rationally and in a way that promotes human existence, which most people do. I also do not think the notion that the process of existing necessarily leads to the adoption of certain deontological principles contradicts the idea that man has no predetermined essence: if anything, it only reinforces Sartre’s notion that man’s first task (by necessity) is existing.
This post is a complete and utter disorganized and gooey mess. Cheers to those who are still reading. By way of conclusion, I agree with Sartre that existence precedes essence and that morality is neither objective nor predetermined. But we must keep in mind that we are all humans trudging through a thoroughly human existence, and it should be little surprise that in practice rational persons hold very similar ideas concerning what constitutes acceptable behavior. Also, please keep in mind that denying the existence of predetermined human essence and absolute moral values is not even remotely the same as saying that all actions are permissible or acceptable. Rather, the existentialist is charged with the task of defining himself; and in defining himself, he defines all men. From there, one must fight for what he thinks is right.
I am sure there are many, many dissenting opinions, and I hope to hear some of them.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
I believe that Sartre is correct and that man is “thrust into” existence. After all, did you ask to be born? Was it your hope, desire, or aspiration to live the human experience? You may well tell me that being born was a boon, but I promise you that you reached that conclusion only after you first grappled with the mere state of existing, of being. At first, I struggled with Sartre’s statement that “existence precedes and rules essence” because I think it is clear that upon accepting this statement, one is flat-out rejecting the possibility that absolute moral values exist. If you accept that existence precedes essence, then absolute moral values cannot exist because you are denying the notion that man has any sort of predetermined nature; as a result, you are denying that there exists any unchanging moral code that delineates what a man necessarily ought to be.
This is hard to swallow because it leads to the conclusion attributed (wrongly??) to Dostoevsky that “…everything would be permitted.” Indeed, if absolute moral values do not exist, then you must be prepared to entertain the notion of a perfectly possible world in which, eg., The Holocaust would be just fine and dandy, or in which murder, rape, and genocide would all be morally permissible. Whether or not this possible world may ever actually obtain is irrelevant: the point is that you must concede that such a world is indeed possible, conceivable. That is very disheartening, and Sartre well captures this feeling or forlornness when he writes that man is “condemned to be free”:
“Dostoevsky once wrote ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. [Commentary added by LemonJello: please note, however, that existentialism does not necessarily imply atheism.] 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. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's actions in reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exists, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimate our behaviour. This we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. 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 that he does.”
I think many people (a vast majority??) would say that objective moral values do exist and that such “possible” worlds as I described above are not possible at all. I disagree and would rather say that such worlds are possible but extraordinarily unlikely. But then the question is: if indeed everything is possibly permissible, then why are such possible worlds so unlikely? Well, as Sartre says, one exists and then defines himself. And I think that the initial process of learning to exist and coexist as a human necessarily imbues one with a certain mindset that affects the subsequent process of defining oneself. In particular, I think that one learns that acting rationally and in accordance with certain deontological principles promotes existence. In particular, Kant presents a coherent case that one is only acting rationally when one adheres to certain deontological principles. These deontological principles basically collapse into the “golden rule” and an unwavering respect for the autonomy of others, which most people agree is more or less common sense. But note that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” says nothing of absolute morality. It is an unchanging deontological principle, but if anything it reflects the fact that what a person would desire to be done unto them need not be absolute in any sense of the word. However, since a common goal of each human is perpetuating his own existence, it seems only natural that the way in which one would desire to be treated by others should necessarily be consonant with a state of perpetuating existence. Thus, the aforementioned possible worlds are very unlikely indeed if people act rationally and in a way that promotes human existence, which most people do. I also do not think the notion that the process of existing necessarily leads to the adoption of certain deontological principles contradicts the idea that man has no predetermined essence: if anything, it only reinforces Sartre’s notion that man’s first task (by necessity) is existing.
This post is a complete and utter disorganized and gooey mess. Cheers to those who are still reading. By way of conclusion, I agree with Sartre that existence precedes essence and that morality is neither objective nor predetermined. But we must keep in mind that we are all humans trudging through a thoroughly human existence, and it should be little surprise that in practice rational persons hold very similar ideas concerning what constitutes acceptable behavior. Also, please keep in mind that denying the existence of predetermined human essence and absolute moral values is not even remotely the same as saying that all actions are permissible or acceptable. Rather, the existentialist is charged with the task of defining himself; and in defining himself, he defines all men. From there, one must fight for what he thinks is right.
I am sure there are many, many dissenting opinions, and I hope to hear some of them.