By Tara Phillips
Existential
philosophy is subject to a single, seemingly debilitating
criticism: it comprises a frame of mind rather than a theory. As
Mary Warnock argues in her book Existentialist Ethics,
"It seems that to be attracted by Existentialism is to be
attracted by a mood. When it comes to serious thought, one may
find . . . that it is necessary to cast off the mood and start
again" (57). The focus of the existentialist is on the
individual, existing being. By nature, the subject of
existentialism appears incommunicable. It demands that each
individual come to an understanding of the inwardness of self
independently. This inwardness is not a state which can be
achieved, but a process of constantly coming to be. The argument
against the existence of an existential ideology seems valid.
Without generalization, how can existentialist philosophy
construct a theory that offers ethical direction?
Although Mary
Warnock argues that existentialism is a mood, this conclusion
fails to reflect the full complexity of existentialism. Though it
lacks in generalization and is of an individual, arguably
incommunicable nature, existentialist philosophy is, at its root,
a universal construction of ethics. Before advancing this claim,
it is necessary to consider what is meant by the term "ethics".
Ethics refer to an individual’s choices rather than the
guidelines of society, known as morals, which dictate conformity.
In existential thought ethics displace morals because ethics
relate to the existentialist’s primary concern: the
individual.
Finding the
underlying values common to existentialists allows an
understanding of the basic substructure of existential philosophy.
There is a set of basic existential truths that run through
existential thought: (1) existence precedes essence, (2) human
beings have free will, and (3) all actions and thoughts are
results of decisions. These foundations of existentialism can be
translated into an existential theory of ethics which holds at
its center the tenet that all beings must be free in order to
posses the essence of being. From this concept come the dictates
of an existential ethic.
The first and most
vital of these dictates is the idea of personal commitment.
Existential commitment requires constant thought, expression, and
action to develop personal essence. It is a dynamic and constant
reaffirmation of personal faith; of coming to be. Faith is the
simplest example of existential action. Kierkegaard explores
faith through his discussion of Christianity. In his philosophy,
Kierkegaard maintains that Christian faith or "inwardness"
must constitute a state of continual reaffirmation of belief.
Faced with the knowledge that Christianity provides no secure
argument for the existence of God, the believer must make a
choice to believe despite the irrationality of such a
decision. Christian commitment is personal, passionate, and
demands constant reconsideration and reaffirmation. It is a
dynamic, rather than a passive belief. Kierkegaard writes:
Without risk there is no faith.
Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion
of inwardness and objective uncertainty. If I can grasp God
objectively, I do not believe, but because I cannot know God
objectively, I must have faith, and if I will preserve myself in
faith, I must constantly be determined to hold fast to the
objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the ocean’s
deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, and still believe.
(40)
In Kierkegaard’s
writing, the idea of constantly working to hold fast to a
subjective faith is the only way to be a true believer. Believing
in name only is existentially irrelevant.
Jean-Paul Sartre
offers another example of how action is the only true affirmation
of faith. In his philosophical writing, Sartre holds that to be a
self-professed atheist, Christian, or hero means nothing if it is
not followed by the action of that faith. Professing to be
something, which is not reflected in action, is, according to
Sartre, bad faith. To say that one is a Christian, and then not
to abide by Christian doctrine is a demonstration of bad faith.
Active faith requires the action match the claim. In Sartre’s
play, No Exit, the character of Garcin demonstrates Sartre’s
claim that what you say you are means nothing unless your actions
are congruent with your claims. Garcin continues to claim heroism
even though he fled at the first sign of real danger. Inez is the
voice of Sartre, arguing that without action, a claim means
nothing and demonstrates nothing of “true essence”:
Garcin:
Listen! Each man has an aim in life, a leading motive; that’s
so, isn’t it? Well, I didn’t give a damn for wealth, or
for love. I aimed at being a real man. A tough, as they say. I
staked everything on the same horse. . . . Can one possibly be a
coward when one’s deliberately courted danger at every turn?
And can one judge a life by a single action?
Inez: Why
not? For thirty years you dreamt you were a hero, and condoned a
thousand petty lapses - because a hero, of course, can do no
wrong. An easy method, obviously. Then a day came when you were
up against it, the red light of real danger - and you took the
train to Mexico.
Garcin: I
‘dreamt,’ you say. It was no dream. When I chose the
hardest path, I made my choice deliberately. A man is what he
wills himself to be.
Inez: Prove
it. Prove it was no dream. It’s what one does, and nothing
else, that shows the stuff one’s made of. (333)
Passive belief does
not constitute existential faith. It is through action that human
essence is defined. Personal, active commitment is paramount to
an existential ethic.
A second foundation
of existential ethics is the concept that choices are individual,
the responsibility of the person who makes them. This belief in
personal choice and responsibility is demonstrated by Heidegger’s
discussion of death as the most significant act of a life.
According to Heidegger, death "forces us to realize that
what we are is determined only after we have completed our last
act, and, therefore, we are free to choose what we are to be"
(Oaklander 156). The recognition of life’s potential,
aroused by the consideration of death, brings focus to the
responsibility of the individual in the shaping and living of his/her
life. Existential awareness leads to a recognition that it is the
individual’s duty to accept not only the responsibility of
making the decisions, but the burden of living with them once
they have been made.
It is important to
existentialists that decisions made, though the exclusive
responsibility of the individual, be based upon more than the
pleasure or comfort of that individual alone. As Nietzsche points
out in Human All Too Human, "[O]ne calls individual
actions good or bad quite irrespective of their motives but
solely on account of their useful or harmful consequences" (135).
The value of the action is based upon its effect on other beings
in the world. Those actions, which limit the freedom of other
individuals, are seen as the least desirable actions to take.
Evaluation of an action should not be based on the belief that
good or evil is inherent in the action itself, irrespective of
the consequences (Nietzsche 135), but on the actual effects of
the particular action. Existential decisions are not a simple
case of "black and white". The goodness in any decision
is relevant, allowing for the consideration of the effects that
the action will have on other individuals. The final decision
made should reflect the common good.
A final,
fundamental dictate of existential ethics is the individual’s
recognition that freedom cannot be limited by demands. In
existential ethics, demands cannot exist because death is always
an option. This is central to the argument Camus presents in The
Myth of Sisyphus. He opens his argument with the suggestion
that once one chooses to live, all other decisions are secondary:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. (3)
The acceptance of
death as an option, albeit one that existentialists recognize as
generally absurd, frees the individual to make choices based upon
personal, essential beliefs. An individual may choose death as
the most ethical choice at any point in his/her life. This choice
would be most relevant in situations where the death of an
individual would protect the existence and freedom of many others,
or of those who are deemed more deserving of life.
An existential ethic is a firm foundation for a "planetary ethic". Throughout a world of diverse religious beliefs, social structures, government powers, and linguistic systems there lies a consistent thread: the individual. The existential ethic demands the individual come to terms with self. A person is responsible for his/her actions, including his/her effect on others. The existentialist must confront how their personal decision making is reflected in world issues, such as hunger, pollution, and ethnic cleansing. As to Mary Warnock’s "mood": ha!
An
existential ethic provides a root for a functional, universal
ethic.
Works
Cited