Existentialist Ethics Flashcards
what criticisms do Existentialist have against established moral theories?
- Moral theories aim to prescribe to you how to act
- Acting according to a Moral Theory is to act for the wrong reason
3.Moral theories in aiming to be objective are too abstract and lack the actual concreteness to be useful to us in our everyday moral problem solving
1.Moral theories aim to prescribe to you how to act
-the intention of moral theories is to tell you what to do and for you to do what is says
-for Existentialists the problem with this picture is that it removes the responsibility we have over our own actions and our moral decisions
-in this way moral theories undermines the fact that you are the one acting and making the moral decisions
- Acting according to a moral theory is to act for the wrong reason
-if we act in a certain way because a moral theory told us to act in that way, this will amount to acting for the wrong reasons
- we should not do the morally right thing because a moral theory said its right, we should do the morally right thing because we believe it to be right
- Moral theories, in aiming to be objective, are too abstract and lack the actual concreteness to be useful to us in our everyday moral problem solving
-moral theories are useless when we have to act because life is often too complicated to think about moral problems in an abstract and mechanical sense
- a moral theory is too abstract often vague and ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of everyday moral problem solving in the first instance(eg trolley problems)
- when we encounter moral problems that are complex it is not the ethical theories that decisively intervene but our own individual choice of action which we can justify to ourselves that seems to be focal to resolving moral dilemmas we are in
Why according to existentialists is acting from the prescriptions of a moral theory dubious?
-it undermines the role of the individual in determining the course of action in that situation
-dependence on moral theories defer the responsibility we have over ourselves and our actions
-the moral theories also undermine the fact that it is ultimately us who are responsible over our action sand not the moral theory
-moral theory makes us respond mechanistically and formally to complex situations
-it opens us up to people being able to do anything based on principle so long as a moral theory prescribes it
what do existentialist offer?
some existentialists propose an Existentialist Ethics that aim to serve as an alternative to Ordinary Ethics, both in terms of what we ought to do and what kind of individual we ought to be) and can adequately account for personal responsibility
Existentialism
as a philosophy simpliciter is not an ethical theory but on ontological position
- its a philosophical theory particularly interested in grasping what it is to exist as a human being in the world
- concerned with nature of “being” meaning what it is to be something
Key claims of Sartrian existentialism as an ontological theory
- Human existence is defined the the pronouncement of “Existence Precedes Essence”
- En Soi, Pour Soi_ Existence is Care
- Radical Freedom
- Existence precedes Essence
- no given way of being human, human existence is a self making-in-a-situation
- what it means to be human can only come about as a result of existing as a human
- humans do not have a preset function or essence they ought to fulfil in their lives, rather who they are as beings and what kinds of life to live comes from their won existence and the choices they make over their lives
Ethical Implications:
there is no preset way that humans ought to behave or act like. A valuable or worthwhile human life can only be determined by choices expressive of ones existential freedom and living one for yourself
- En Soi, Pour Soi
To exist as a human is not simply to be but for your being to be an issue for you
- to exist for humans is to be for yourself, to determine your own existence and to care about what it is that you want to be and will become, and for this to be who your truly are
Radical Freedom
a persons being is defined by radical freedom
- the authentic person is one who lives in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom
- nothing is pregiven in human existence your combined existence is a matter of your choices regarding how you relate to your situation and determine your existence
Ethical Implication: To live a valuable human life you ought to take these aspects of your existence seriously
what is the ethical approach or ethical position that Existentialist Ethicists infer from Existentialism
There is a moral imperative for all human being to be authentic individuals, where authenticity involves the adequate embrace of your an everyones existential freedom in your actions, endeavours and who you are
Authenticity or the avoidance of ‘‘Bad Faith” is a Sartrian existentialist ethical ideal that we ought to live by
Bad Faith
These are strategies for denying or disguising one’s freedom and responsibility in order to minimize the anxiety which full appreciation of these would induce
ethically:
- bad faith ought to be avoided because it constitutes the denial of ones existential freedom and responsibility. It constitutes the ethically wrong way of relating to our human existence (radical existential freedom)
What elements does Bad Faith consist of?
Bad Faith also involves failing to strike a balance between ones facticity with ones transcendence (overemphasising one or the other)
Bad faith hence involves acting like your life is determined for you and that you have no control or power over yourself and action as well as denying your freedom
Facticity
Brute facts that characterize who we are which we ought to take full responsibility over
Transcendence
living fully for oneself, embracing freedom and choice
Examples of Individuals exhibiting Bad Faith
The Sartrian waiter:
- lives mechanically as a waiter, acts as though his role is a give
- emphasizes facticity over transcendence (act like being who they are is pre-determined)
- lives in Bad Faith because he denies his radical freedom for who he thinks he should be and how he should behave by an external standard
The Sartrian Gay man:
- a man whose existential facts of their intimacy desires point to him being gay but chooses to deny who he is perpetually
- over emphasizes transcendence at the expense of facticity
- lives in Bad Faith because he denies his own most being, fails to take responsibility over himself by denying his facticity and his existential freedom to choose his true sexuality
Existential Ethics as Avoiding bad faith
Bad faith is what is to be inauthentic, to be authentic is to avoid bad faith
- there is a moral imperative to avoid Bad Faith
Reciprocal Freedom
We ought to recognize the freedom of others in the same way we recognize our own, our obligation to cultivate an authentic sense of self as a free person commits us to cultivate in others a similar sense of their freedom
- ones existential freedom is tied to everyones existential freedom
Does Existentialist Ethics meet the conditions of an ethical theory
- how should we live our lives?
- ultimate aim or telos live authentically by avoiding bad faith
- taking full responsibility over our actions
- embracing our freedom
issue: is it always good for one to live an authentic life - how we ought to relate to others
- David Cooper suggests that Existentialist Ethics requires that we relate to others in a manner that recognizes their freedom in the same way that we ought to recognize our own - What kind of life is a valuable and worthwhile life for a human being to live?
-authentic life is worth living because it encompasses the best way to relate to your humanly existence
- a life that fully embraces existential freedom and responsibility
- a life not driven by being for others but by true individual choice
issues: is it considered morally bad to commit your life to serving something outside of yourself - How should we act and behave
-decide for ourselves what to do, not seeking to evade responsibility by sheltering under the rules
critiques
- Existentialist Ethics is Unsubstantive
- Existentialist Ethics is self defeating
- Existentialist ethics is too egoistic
- Existentialist Ethics is fundamentally arbitrary
- Being inauthentic is morally better
- Unsubstantive critique
the casuistry critique:
EE says we ought to follow our existential freedom but how does this help us make moral decisions? The moral imperative is empty seeing that existentialist ethics might encourage a decision but it does not inform a moral decision
Self defeating critique
scenario: telling a friend to embrace the individual freedom
- is your friend free in following your instruction to be free
- in this way we can see that existential ethics is making it a moral imperative to embrace ones own existential freedom undermines the very existential freedom one has and one ought to pursue
- this shows theory to be internally inconsistent
response:
The imperative to embrace Existential freedom is a conceptual moral necessity as opposed to a limitation
Existentialist Ethics is too egoistic
In being preoccupied with an individuals choice and freedom, Existentialist Ethics encourages individuals to be preoccupied with themselves and undermines important moral goods like altruism and social cooperation
- it reads as a fundamentally anti social orientation which can erode the moral importance of altruism and compassion towards others
response:
An existentialist could respond saying that this critique begs the question. It is circular because it assumes that authenticity is fundamentally individualistic to prove it is egoistic
???
Fundamentally arbitrary critique
if according to Existentialist Ethics the rightness of each action and each behaviour is vindicated by individual choice alone, then it seems like it results in morality being extremely arbitrary (dependent on the whims of individuals)
- morality thus becomes unstable, seems like anything is justifiably morally right in so far as it follows from the exercise of existential freedom
response:
it is not arbitrary because it still appeals to a standard which is the extent to which one avoids bad faith
response to defense:
somethings that we find to be intuitively morally right might have nothing to do with existential freedom
it is possible for any action to be a product of your or others existential freedom, it is not clear why this is sufficient for the action to be justified
Being inauthentic is morally better
According to Feldman pursuing our existential freedom could be bad (for us and others) and there are cases where ones existential freedom shouldnt be pursued at all
- can a person ho wants to be a murderer pursue their existential freedom
- this critique suggests that it might be morally better in some sense to not embrace our existential freedom and treat ourselves as the final word on what is right and constitutes justified actions
