L39 Reading Guide: Sartre

Reading: Sartre, “Ethics without Religion”, pp. 622-629

Reading Guide: The editors give a nice overview of Sartre on p. 622. Sartre was an atheist and an existentialist. For Sartre, “existence precedes essence”; the “first principle” of existentialism is that “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”(622). Since there is no God, there is no such thing as a “human nature” & thus man’s actions are not determined (625). Man is radically free. Even though we can no longer claim that man is “made in God’s image”, man still has “a greater dignity than inanimate objects and other living organisms. See p. 623 for the source of our dignity. A crucial early passage is on p. 623: “When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men”. Be aware that sometimes what Sartre means is not immediately evident; you think he means one thing, then discover a little later that he couldn’t have meant what you initially thought he meant. So, tag any claims that seem extraordinary or jump out at you and keep those in mind as you read further. On pp. 623-626, Sartre discusses the implications of man’s radical freedom – anguish, forlornness, and despair. Note that his definitions of forlornness and despair seem to have no psychological component. His discussion of anguish is more overtly psychological. Note also that in his discussion of anguish, he makes use of an idea that seems very similar to Kant’s universal law test. While we might think that anguish is paralyzing, Sartre maintains that “it is not a curtain separating us from action, but is part of action itself” (624). In the section on forlornness, Sartre discusses the implications of the recognition that God does not exist. I think this section is pretty straightforward. Note especially his discussion of the example of the young man who was struggling to decide whether to decamp to England and fight with the French Free Forces or instead to stay at home with his mother whose psychological health seemed to depend on his presence. From the bottom of p. 626 through p. 629, Sartre identifies and responds to 3 objections to his position. All 3 of these objections seem to stem from the concern that existentialism makes our choices arbitrary. In response to the objection that the basis of choice is anarchic, Sartre argues that the basis of choice is not caprice or whim; he compares making ethical choices to painting a work of art. Neither the painter nor the moral agent acts arbitrarily. Second, he agrees that there’s a sense in which “we are unable to pass judgment on others”, but maintains that there’s also a sense in which the existentialist can judge others, both epistemically and morally. Still, the kind of moral judgment that the existentialist can pass on others’ ethically significant choices is not likely to satisfy the objector. Third, he responds to the objection that “values aren’t serious” if existentialism is true. Finally, he explains the sense in which existentialism is a humanism and the sense in which it is not a humanism.