Doing What Feels Right and Sartre's Existentialism

Introduction
Existentialism can be summarized in one phrase, "existence precedes essence." But what does this mean? Pre-existentialism, philosophical systems presumed Man had an essence. To understand what that means consider a chair. Chairs don't just randomly pop into existence...no sir!  Before they are created someone or something has to have a concept of what a chair is (i.e., something for sitting), then the chair is created in conformity with the concept. The essence of a chair is that for which it is designed--which is sitting, if you didn't know.

Notice two things: (a) having an essence, in the sense I've described, implies a creator and (b) that the creation's essence is determined before it comes into existence. And so, artifacts--things like chairs, computers, cars, iphones, etc--all have creators and have an essence/nature/purpose before they come into existence.

Let's return to "existence precedes essence." For existentialists, human beings are unlike artifacts in that we exist before we have an essence/nature. We are not designed and so there is no predetermined essence that defines who or what we are. Who/what we are comes after we exist. We are thrust into the world and create ourselves through the actions we choose. This is what "existence precedes essence" means: first we exist, then we will acquire a nature (though our acts).  If I do harmful acts and act selfishly, then this is what I am. If I create and share, then this becomes my nature. There is no predetermined nature beyond what I actually choose to do. Again, contrast this with artifacts: first they have a nature/essence/purpose then they are brought into the world.

For existentialists, the human condition is (a) understanding that we are free to choose our own essence (through our actions) and (b) figuring out how we ought to create ourselves given we have no intrinsic nature. Another way of thinking about this is to say that we are responsible for who we are.

Radical Freedom and Responsibility
Although we have no common nature among us we all share the same conditions: We are "condemned" to be free thus we have to make choices about how to live and 'be'. There is nothing objective in the world to grab to guide us in our choices. Every choice is exactly that--our choice. And because every action is a consequence of our own choice, we bear absolute responsibility for it. Pretending you don't have a choice is what Sartre calls "bad faith". Bad faith is lying to yourself about the reality of your radical freedom. Even when you act in bad faith you cannot escape responsibility for your choices which define who you are. It was your choice to lie to yourself.

The existential condition is that there are no objective values to guide our decisions and no one but our selves to decide which values we adopt. Now some might say that we can turn to religion or authorites to guide us. There are a few problems with this. First, you are shirking your responsibility as a free being for decisions. By deferring to an outside source for your decisions your are denying your responsibility to choose for yourself.

One might say that choosing to follow this or that text or leader is a choice--and it is. But this doesn't allow you to escape the subjectivity of the human condition:  how you choose to interpret the various texts and advice will also be a matter of your own choice. There's no external source you can lean on to tell you how to interpret. You cannot escape the subjectivity of your existence and so you still must bear the responsibility of choosing one interpretation over another.

Furthermore, your essence is nothing more that the sum of the things that you choose to do. And if trying to deny your radical freedom and offload responsibility are part of your actions, then you are a coward. Anguish, for the existentialist, in part comes from knowing that he bears full responsibility for what he does and who he is and that this responsibility is inescapable.

Moral Choice
If there are no objective values in the world, it seems like anything goes. Again, just like with any other choice, the ethics that you choose define your essence. If you choose and act on a selfish ethic, then that's what you are and you are responsible for everything that comes from it.

But, in a sense, our actions aren't completely unconstrained. Here's where we exit subjectivity. Every choice that I make not only defines who I am but also defines the essence of Man as a whole because I am a part of that whole. This demands that I consider the consequences of my choices on what will be the nature of Man.

For every man, everything happens as if all mankind had its eyes fixed on him and were guiding itself by what he does. And every man ought to say to himself "Am I really the kind of man who has the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself by my actions? (Existentialism)

I am responsible, through my choices, for how Man is defined for my time in history because I am a part of Man.

But this is vague. How do I decide what to do in specific cases? Unfortunately, general moral principles can't tell us how to decide particular cases. Sartre give the following case:

[The young man's] father was on bad terms with his mother, and, moreover, was inclined to be a collaborationist; his older brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940, and the young man, with somewhat immature but generous feelings, wanted to avenge him. His mother lived alone with him, very much upset by the half-treason of her husband and the death of her older son; the boy was her only consolation. The boy was faced with the choice of leaving for England and joining the Free French Forces--that is, leaving his mother behind or remaining with his mother and helping her to carry on.
He was fully aware that the woman lived only for him and that his going off--and perhaps his death--would plunge her into despair. He was also aware that every act that he did for his mother's sake was a sure thing, in the sense that it was helping her to carry on, whereas every effort he made toward going off and fighting was an uncertain move which might run aground and prove completely useless; for example, on his way to England he might, while passing through Spain, be detained indefinitely in a Spanish camp; he might reach England or Algiers and be stuck in an office at a desk job. As a result, he was faced with two very different kinds of action: one, concrete, immediate, but concerning only one individual; the other concerned an incomparably vaster group, a national collectivity, but for that very reason was dubious, and might be interrupted en route. And, at the same time, he was wavering between two kinds of ethics.
On the one hand, an ethics of sympathy, of personal devotion; on the other, a broader ethics, but one whose efficacy was more dubious. He had to choose between the two. Who could help him choose? Christian doctrine? No. Christian doctrine says, "Be charitable, love your neighbor, take the more rugged path, etc., etc." But which is the more rugged path? Whom should he love as a brother? The fighting man or his mother? Which does the greater good, the vague act of fighting in a group, or the concrete one of helping a particular human being to go on living? Who can decide a priori? Nobody. No book of ethics can tell him. The Kantian ethics says, "Never treat any person as a means, but as an end." Very well, if I stay with my mother, I'll treat her as an end and not as a means; but by virtue of this very fact, I'm running the risk of treating the people around me who are fighting, as means; and, conversely, if I go to join those who are fighting, I'll be treating them as an end, and, by doing that, I run the risk of treating my mother as a means. (Existentialism)

And so a general ethical principle can't help us decide specific cases. And besides, even if we do choose a general ethical principle, there is no guide to tell us which to choose as either a general guide of action or for particular cases. We also have to make that choice and we bear responsibility for it and accept that it now defines us in so far as we act on it.

Sartre and Emotions
General ethical principles can't tell me what to do in particular cases. Maybe I ought to do what feels right to me. If the young man feels that his love for his mother is great enough to sacrifice his other desires, then he should do that. But if the feeling of love for his mother isn't enough to make him give up everything else, then he ought to leave.

But how will he know that he loves his mother enough to give up everything else unless he actually does it? To know that his feeling leads him to the right choice he has to live that choice. He has to see how it plays out. He might try it and find out that the desire to avenge his brother overwhelms him and he's unhappy staying behind and so the feeling misguided him. But he can't know this before he lives it. The feeling can't tell him in advance what to do.

Consider another case that many can relate to. How do you know if marrying someone will be the right choice? Consulting your feelings before you're married can't tell you. You'll only know if it's the right choice if you actually do it. If it turns out well, it was the right choice. If it turns out poorly, it wasn't. The feeling can't tell you what's going to happen and so can't tell you in advance what the right thing to do is. Besides, if feelings were a good guide to marriage, we'd expect the divorce rate to be substantially lower.

It Isn't All Doom and Gloom
So, we are hurled into the world, condemned to be free with no fixed points to guide us in how we ought to live, yet we are somehow responsible for everything we do and are. This is the existential forlornness and anguish.  Forlorn because we cannot turn to anyone to make decisions for us and anguish because of the tremendous responsibility that comes with creating both our own essence and that of Man.

But chin up, butter cup! The good news is that existentialism is a philosophy of action. You might not have any guides but you get to create yourself--with every choice. Bonus, if you didn't like where things were going, you can reinvent yourself at any moment, if you so choose.

There is no reality except in action. Man is nothing else but his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his plan. (Existentialism)

Before you go skipping off into the sunset, existentialism is a demanding philosophy if you take it seriously. In creating yourself and defining Man, with every act you are saying "this is what I think all mankind ought to be--follow me!" When taken seriously, that is a massive responsibility to bear (hence, all the angst).

It also means that there is nothing that exists that is not expressed in action. There are no great authors with unwritten great books, no charitable people with kind deeds undone, no great loves who have not loved.  "Reality alone counts and [...] dreams, expectations, and hopes warrant no more than to define a man as a disappointed dream, miscarried hopes, as vain expectations" (Existentialism).  In other words, coulda woulda shoulda is worthless. At the end of the day, what matters is what you did with your life and whether it was an example for others to follow.

Critical Thinking: Arguers and Systems of Belief

Review: 
In the last post we gave a formal definition to an argument:  a set of reasons and evidence that support a conclusion.  We also discussed the two main components of an argument: the premises and the conclusion.  Recall that the conclusion is the central claim that the arguer is trying to make.  If they do their job well, they will support that claim with relevant premises (i.e., reasons and evidence).  If they don't, they might as well just be waiving their hands in the air and jumping up and down.

In this next section we will look at how certain facts about the person or group making an argument influences various aspects their argument.

Arguers and Systems of Belief
Overview
As much as many of us would like to think we are objective thinkers, we often are not.  Hume famously argued that "reason is slave to the passions."  The general idea is this:  We begin with a position that we are emotionally attached to and we collect evidence and arguments to support what we already believe.  This is as opposed to how most people think they operate; that is, collect evidence and consider reasons and then see where that leads.  There is a wealth of psychological research showing that Hume was right about most people, most of the time.

Mommy, Where do Beliefs Come from?
As we go through our early life, we uncritically acquire a "web" of beliefs based on experiences.  How we experience the world, and the types of experiences we have depend heavily on things out of our control.  Typical elements that form our system of belief include: race, culture, socio-economic class, attractiveness, gender, education, family life, religion/non-religion, nationality, geography, and so on.

Often, before our ability to reason develops, may of these beliefs become central to our identity.  To have them shown to be false would be to admit that something important to our identity is false.  Having our identity come under scrutiny is often an emotionally painful experience and so we vigorously protect the beliefs that form the core of our identity--often ignoring contravening reasons and evidence.

So, why does this all matter?  Because when it comes to arguments about things that are really important to us, our arguments are often driven by emotion rather than reason and even-handed evaluation of reasons and evidence.  So, on such issues, instead of entering the debate with the attitude, "well, lets look at the reasons and evidence for both positions and evaluate which is best," what often happens is we enter a debate with a pre-existing particular position.  We then use arguments to defend the position that we already held--no matter the relative quality of argument for the other position.

In other words, we are emotionally attached to a conclusion before any real critical thought begins.  From that conclusion, we use argumentation, reason, logic to arrive where we already were!  Our reason is slave to the passions; i.e., reason serves to justify the positions we already hold.  Or, to paraphrase Hume again, "man is not the rational animal but the rationalizing animal."

(Note: There are several recent trends in psychology and philosophy that argue that rather than having a distorting effect, emotions play an important role in various domains such as social and ethical reasoning.)

Now, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with holding a position on an issue, however, what is important is to be aware of how our web of beliefs and emotions influence our ability to effectively argue for a position and evaluate the issue. 

Elements of a Web of Belief
As critical thinkers we need to pay close attention to how a person's web of beliefs influences the assumptions they will make; that is, what sorts of things will they take for granted. For example, in the abortion debate, opponents of abortion will often take it for granted that a fetus is a person.  This assumption stems from many facts about their personal history.  Such facts might include: race, religiosity and religion (or lack of), gender, sex, education, career, and socio-economic class.

Some proponents of abortion might even agree that fetus is in some ways a person.  But for them the desires of the autonomous woman carrying the fetus outweigh those of the fetus.  But is this a scientific question where someone in a lab coat can put all the fetus' desires into a beaker and put all the pregnant woman's desires into another then put them on a scale and measure which have more weight?  No.  To demonstrate that one set of desires has more weight than the other requires argument--and that argument must begin from common premises if opposing sides are to have any hope of agreement. 

For many people in this debate, the answer to this question will depend heavily upon the different elements that helped to build that individual's web of beliefs.  Their position will likely not come out of having spent month studying the academic literature on the issue and carefully evaluating the arguments on all sides.  It is for this reason that arguers must seek and begin with common ground with their opponents.

Why Do the Elements that Build Someone's System of Belief Matter?
How to Win an Argument
What is interesting is that based on a person's web of beliefs we can sometimes "reverse engineer" some of the elements that influenced their web of beliefs and also identify what many of their unstated assumptions are.  Doing so can be an important step in deciding how to engage with the arguer.

If our goal is to show our opponent why his argument is problematic or persuade him to our point of view, you must be able search for and identify common ground from which you can build to your conclusion rather than his.  If you both begin from different assumptions, no progress will ever likely be made!

A key to bringing someone to your point of view is to find common assumptions (premises) and show how your conclusion, rather than your opponents follows from these assumptions.

How to be a Philosopher
A true philosopher seeks truth above all else--or at least (non-foolish) consistency.  While we can use our understanding of systems of beliefs and the elements that form them, we can also use this information on ourselves.

It would be foolish to think that magically we are the only ones without ideological blind spots and unexamined assumptions!  Introspection on how our own gender, culture, religion/non-religion, family, education, career, peer group, etc... shape the way we experience the world (and in turn our beliefs and assumptions about it) is a valuable exercise. Doing so allows us to see where we have uncritically accepted certain views.

I can give a recent example in my own life.  Because I grew up agnostic/atheist and most of my friends are agnostic/atheist, for most of my life I've tended to see religion as a harmful thing.  However, over the last half-year or so, I've seen and experienced religion in different contexts beyond something to criticize.

My study of the role community in restoration of criminals to productive members of society has led me to see religion as a (positive) powerful force for bringing the elements of community necessary for restoration.  While I doubt you'll find me in the pews any time soon, re-evaluating some of my assumptions about religion has changed my system of beliefs and many of my fundamental assumptions toward religion.

Interestingly, it was the emotional impact of reading about and experiencing (I went to a church with a friend to experience it) how the community elements of religion can change lives for the better in ways that might be much more difficult (but not impossible) for secular society.   In short, this is more evidence that much of what Hume said was right.  It is our emotions that lead our reason, not the other way around.

Next week we will read an article by J. Haidt, a psychologist, who gives empirical evidence for Hume's idea that we often can't change peoples deeply held views by reasoning, it must be through emotion.