According to Sartre, man is absolve to make his own selections, but is "condemned" to be free, because we didn't create ourselves. Despite the fact that people are placed on Earth without their consent, we must choose and act freely from every situation we have been in. Everything we do is because being free because we've choice. The only option we don't have is that of experiencing choices. Not merely are we condemned to be free because we didn't choose to can be found, but we live also condemned to be free because we will be the only thing that exists that must be responsible for all of our actions. However, how do we realize that God doesn't have everything determined for us and leads us to think that we could free? The simple truth is that we don't know, and won't until we leave this earth. It is now up to us to decide if our freedom is to be valued, and choose just how we want to use our liberty.
Sartre's main point is the fact that from the moment we are tossed in to the world, we should be completely in charge of all of our actions. A couple of no eternal worth or ethics that people can base just how we live off of. It doesn't seem sensible to use what "I can't, or I must" to something, because we in the end do have a decision for everything we do. Whenever we act in a certain way, we cannot blame it on anyone but ourselves, and we must take full responsibility for our actions, even though we might not really want to. Sartre says that people cannot say that people picked one action over another since it is what God wished, or because it was inside our nature to do so. The responsibility is ours and ours by themselves. Sartre thought that throughout each of our existence, we should create meaning in your lives, and this is what this means to exist. We are responsible for our destiny and the way we live is produced from that which you label of ourselves.
It may seem like Sartre see this flexibility as a curse. The usage of the word "condemned to be free" appears like Sartre see's this independence as an inconvenience rather than blessing. Since Sartre doesn't have confidence in God, he's seen as exclusively on earth with nobody to be based upon but himself. Corresponding to Sartre, God will not exist, and for that reason cannot limit what we do or how exactly we work. A person cannot make excuses because of their actions, since there is no God to react to, and he has chosen them on his own. Were condemned to face life and the duty that comes with it. Even when Sartre believed in a God, it still wouldn't help what he is trying to express. If God been around then some people would only want to let God make their decisions for the kids, which gives people a justification for their actions, and eliminates all sense of liberty. Or people would have to decide if indeed they wanted to follow God's guidelines in the first place, and would then need to be accountable for this decision.
However, there are results for this aspect of the argument as well. If God will not are present, everything is permitted because there is no God to avoid us from doing whatever we want, whenever we required. Man wouldn't normally have to be in charge of their actions since there is no God to guage them. Without principles or morals predefined in human being nature, addititionally there is no determinism as it pertains to how we react in each situation. Sartre says that being human being means taking responsibility for the options that you make. But if there is no God, then what should we label of ourselves? Who are we to choose what is moral and immoral? How can we possibly choose to do good whenever there are no predefined standard that instructs us what is good and what's evil? Sartre says it is dependent upon us to decide the goodness of our choices. Our humanity is choosing actions which may have value to us, and the ones choices continue steadily to define us. Whenever we look at a decision we must make, Sartre says that we genuinely have already made the decision of what we are going to do, and when we choose not to choose, that is clearly a choice as well. Despite of the responsibility of independence, man must take benefit of his condemned flexibility, because quitting our independence would be giving up our humanness as well. Surely it is best to be "condemned to be free", than "condemned to be God's puppet".
Sartre uses the main idea of Existentialism "presence precedes substance, " in his argument to show that people have the choice in everything we do. The fact that existence precedes fact states that there surely is no pre-existing concept of man. This is one way we need to understand man - that our "essence" is not something that is set in advance, but rather that all man creates this himself. Humans exist in different ways than anything else. Plants and pets or animals likewise have life, nevertheless they don't need to consider what their life means, or how they will act. Sartre is wanting to symbolize that man exists first, and then has liberty to choose what kind of person to be. If presence does indeed come before substance, there is no determinism, man is free. Man lives dependant on his essence. A part of why is you the person you are, is situated off of things that no longer can be found. We make alternatives looking at the future which determine who we are now. So we can not say that man comes with an substance first, because we could always "before ourselves. "
The perception that "existence precedes substance" ties into the proven fact that the existentialist doesn't believe that is a God. In case a human is established by God, then your human's essence has been established, just like everything else in this universe. However once more, how do we know that God doesn't have everything determined for us and just leads us to believe we are free? We don't know. In the existentialist view, man is what he makes of himself. You will discover no set designs concerning how one must live. We've "THE KNOWLEDGE of preference Making" regardless of determinism. People must look into themselves and make the choices predicated on their own interpretations and experiences.
Sartre also says that in embracing people for advice, you are choosing yourself because you know very well what advice they will give. Many people seek advice and they choose who they will ask. This responsibility for home willpower is hard to accept, as people would much somewhat want to be able to blame another thing. We have to realize that our destiny is inside our own hands. Sartre identifies the action of blame and non-responsibility as bad-faith or self-deception, and is merely betrayal of your respective self.
The determinist view such as Laplace argues that determinism is true; determinism rules out human independence and responsibility, and human being flexibility and responsibility must be declined. The determinist believes in a god, which only God would be able to cope with something as perplexing as the earth and the man. Sartre evidently rejects this view, as it could deny the natural flexibility of man. The libertarian such as Sartre argues that individuals flexibility and responsibility must be accepted, individual freedom and responsibility rules out determinism, and determinism must be rejected.
As Human's, we should find our own course through the planet and make our own choices in what we will value, what we will expect from one another, and what we are going to deice is "good" or "bad. " Despite the fact that Sartre does not believe in God and seems man as "essentially alone, he also identifies were unavoidably linked with other people. Even when there is no God to judge us, we have to realize that each one of our actins will have an effect on another human being. Whatever we choose to do, others will be damaged and they are free to respond negatively.
I consider Sartre's whole goal is to wake us up from the idea that we may use excuses for our actions. I'd have to state that Sartre has a pretty good argument. However, I have one last question for Sartre: Regardless of whether we live "condemned to be free, " and we aren't free in the choice of having alternatives, don't we have the ability to eliminate this liberty at any moment with suicide?
