Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.
On the other hand, this existentialist is far more intrigued with exploring why very different people come to prefer very different things pertaining to morality. The part I attribute "here and now" to both dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. I can only note my arguments and then ask others who don't share them to bring their own sets of assumptions down out of the theoretical clouds. Sartreans -- existentialists -- here as well.In order to see what shape such a theory [above] might take, let us return to the second objection to an existentialist ethics mentioned at the start of this article – namely, that existentialism treats morality simply as a function of individual preferences.
Same thing? There's what this means to you as an abstract assessment, and there is how you would intertwine it given your own day to day interactions with others.Some of Sartre’s comments on values appear to give strong support to this view of existentialism. As with the previous issue, however, I think there is a way of reading Sartre’s argument which avoids this implication.
Here, in my view, as with all such quandaries, the question isn't what we choose, but whether or not, philosophically, we can "think up" the optimal frame of mind. Or, deontologically, the only rational frame of mind? Some will rush off to care for their aging mother, while others [like me] may have long ago abandoned all family ties. Are they evil or not? Then back to the manner in which dasein factors into your own moral philosophy. And not just the objectivists.Existentialism and Humanism contains a famous anecdote that is sometimes cited in support of an interpretation of existentialism as moral subjectivism. The story concerns a student who approached Sartre for help with a moral quandary. The student was faced with a choice between going to England to join the Free French Forces and staying in France to care for his aging mother. As each option held a different type of moral attraction for him, he asked Sartre for advice as to how he should resolve this practical dilemma.
So, what is the Right Thing To Do?
This is all hopelessly problematic, ambiguous, subjunctive. Okay, you chuck theoretical assessments. But if there are "objective values" one can turn to in regard to conflicting goods such as the one noted above, what might some of them be in regard to your own sense of family obligations?After considering the student’s situation, Sartre responded with what must have seemed a very unhelpful suggestion: “You are free, so choose.” At first glance, Sartre’s response may seem to support an interpretation of his ethical theory as a form of subjectivism. However, Sartre’s recognition that, in this type of situation, no theory of morality could help the student decide how to act does not necessarily entail that there are no objective values. It may simply be that moral values are such that they do not always point to a single course of action.