Existentialism: Ethics of Authenticity Dr. Schmid, Ph.D. Philosophy and Religion, UNCW

Key Concepts: ATHEISM – AUTHENTICITY – CHOICE BEINGS CONSCIOUSNESS/BEING FOR ITSELF THINGS/BEING IN ITSELF TRUE vs. FALSE CONCEPTS OF REALITY/MORALITY True: ATHEISM “Existence precedes essence.” Self-deceiving: THEISM “Essence precedes existence.” REASON FOR ACTION = CHOICE AUTHENTICITY (following ‘choice’) vs. INAUTHENTICITY (following ‘duty’) EXISTENTIAL TRUTH AND MORALITY SELF-CHOSEN vs. BAD FAITH (OTHER-DETERMINED) TWO FORMS OF FREEDOM RADICAL FREEDOM: to define good and evil (moral subjectivity) MORAL FREEDOM: to act in accord with your idea of good or evil HUMAN CONDITION SELF-AS-PROJECT (man is radically free) GUILT, CONSCIENCE (man is subject)

Where does ethics come from? Essentialists say that God created man Thus man = an artifact, meant to perform certain functions Morality = to do what you were made to do, e.g. procreate, worship God, obey moral rules Sartre: this = myth and self-deception

Where does ethics come from? Existentialists say: “Existence precedes essence.” Man = an emergent reality, free to define his own ends and rules of living Each individual has the right to redefine morality himself; there is no ‘objective’ ethics Sartre: this = existential truth and authenticity

Existentialism Provides no universal moral theory Conscious agents both act according to their concepts of good and evil, and must define those concepts for themselves—have both ‘moral’ and ‘existential’ or ‘radical’ freedom “Existentialist Imperative” = do that which you affirm as valid for all men [this is your assertion, not that of “reason”] Values autonomy and authenticity Rejects other theories: Theories that are based on authority Theories that are theistic/essentialist Theories that are “objective” or universalist or “rationalist”

“Existentialist Imperative”? When we say man chooses himself, we mean every one of us must choose himself; but we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. Our responsibility thus concerns mankind as a whole. I am responsible for myself and for all men, for in choosing what I value, I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be.

The Gauguin Dilemma In 1885, the French artist, Paul Gauguin, made the existential choice to abandon his wife and family to go to the South Seas and paint. His family was left destitute, but he created some of the greatest art in the Western tradition. Was this a morally indefensible choice? What would Kant say? Sartre? Bentham or Mill? Does it matter than he did become great? Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?

Radical Choice? Sartre argues ethics is founded on ultimate values which cannot be rationally justified. As a result, our most basic choice is not (a) between good and evil, but (b) how we will define good and evil. His example: a young man in France in 1940, who must choose between (i) staying at home and caring for his mother, or (ii) joining the Free French forces in England. Does this example prove his claim—that our most basic ethical decisions are matters of “existential choice,” not matters of “moral reason”?

Kant vs. Sartre Kantian Individual Existential Individual Free will Responsibility/”respect” Human essence = rational animal Morality = self-given laws of moral reason (Cat Imp) Reason reveals Scientific universe Nothing about God Universal moral law (conscience) Existential Individual Free will Responsibility/”anguish” No human essence = self-determining Morality = self-given ‘law’ of existential responsibility Reason reveals Scientific universe Nothing about God No universal morality (anguish)