The concept of freedom has been addressed from all possible angles and regarding various tenets. Freedom among human beings is responsible for the current shape of various institutions including religion and politics. Lack of freedom is also attributed to most of the inconsistencies that apply to the current society. Consequently, freedom is a contentious subject that on some occasions empowers human beings and on other times gets in the way of their desires. Jean-Paul Sartre’s views on freedom lean on his existential philosophy. Sartre’s philosophy borrows on “his new vision of consciousness, and by answering the question of the being in a new way, he provides a different understanding of our existence in this world” (Caws 45).
At a glance, Sartre’s philosophy attributes human freedom to the conscious aspect of humanity (the ‘for-itself’) and the non-conscious state (the ‘in-itself’). Consequently, Sartre claims that the meeting point of these two aspects of a human being is the genesis of freedom. Sartre was of the view that human beings are essentially free and they are responsible for the dynamics of their guiding consciousness and the resulting actions. Nevertheless, Sartre was of the view that “with total freedom comes total responsibility” (Gutting 67). Responsibility about freedom makes individuals responsible for all their decisions including their choice to be non-committal. This essay explains Jean-Paul Sartre’s understanding of human freedom and his concept of responsibility. The paper also offers a reflection of Sartre’s concept of freedom and responsibility and its suitability in the modern context.
According to Sartre, freedom, and responsibility go hand in hand. Consequently, human beings are always free and consequently responsible for their actions and accompanying individual circumstances. This worldview is subject to analysis and scrutiny from several quarters. To sustain his argument, Sartre uses the example of individuals who are involved in a war. According to the philosopher, the general outlook when soldiers are involved in a war is that they have no freedom of choice when it comes to individual circumstances. However, the true scenario is that anyone who is involved in a war can run away or commit suicide as a choice to protest his/her scenario and thereby exercise his/her freedom.
On the other hand, individuals only fight in a war because they believe that fighting provides the option that represents their best interests. Sartre’s main argument is that individuals always choose freely and engage in activities that represent their best interests. The concept of freedom as expressed by Sartre negates the possibility that an individual’s free will can be overrun. The overall sentiment through Sartre’s example of war and freedom is that “each person is an absolute choice of self from the standpoint of a world of ‘knowledge’ and of techniques which this choice both assumes and illumines; each person is an absolute upsurge at an absolute date and is perfectly unthinkable at another date” (Solomon 253). Consequently, there is no viable reason that human beings can give for foregoing their choice to exercise freedom.
When it comes to responsibility, Sartre is of the view that human being is “responsible for everything that happens in their lives except the fact that they are responsible for everything” (Solomon 255). The view that human beings have been figuratively abandoned in this world should only serve as a motivation for them to pursue freedom. This line of argument also bears the sentiment that human beings might not be in control of their decision to be in the world but they have the means to control their existence. Although this outlook provides a ‘positive’ overview of human existence, it is also generalized to some extent. For instance, Sartre’s philosophy eliminates the possibility of the existence of a deity or a higher power. Therefore, the philosophy can be in turn attributed to atheism. Other individuals might find the concept of responsibility empowering because it gives them the confidence that they are in charge of their actions.
Sartre’s belief in the concept of essential freedom raises the conviction that “free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions” (Sartre 38). The philosopher’s reasoning when it comes to the association between freedom and responsibility is that it is absolute freedom facilitates total responsibility. Consequently, even irresponsibility is a result of a free-willed decision to let go of control of one’s actions and their consequences. According to Sartre, we are all responsible for the ethics that come from exercises of our freedom. Sartre’s philosophy was targeted at a society that would be driven by both collective and individual conscience. This philosophy can also be used to construct social structures thereby formulating methods through which “individuals might ideally interact with each other to affirm their respective humanities, but he is dismissive of any version of universal ethics” (Howells 56). Sartre’s main argument when it comes to responsibility and freedom is that morality is a subjective effort that is guided by the principle of free will through individual conscience.
There are some interesting points in regards to Sartre’s views on freedom and responsibility. How the philosopher applies freedom to the context of everyday life is both fascinating and confusing. One observer notes that Sartre’s philosophy can be interpreted to mean that the “universal situation for the contingency of freedom in the plenum of being of the world in as much as this datum, which is there, only in order not to constrain freedom, is revealed to this freedom only as already illuminated by the end which freedom chooses” (Sartre, 48). This confusing statement can be interpreted to mean that the choices we make in tandem with our goals provide us with a chance to utilize our freedom. On the other hand, this choice-factor dictates the way through which we interpret our realities and their constituents.
For example, our encounters in this world are dependent on the choice factor that makes a person choose to see a mountain as high when he/she is interested in climbing it. On the other hand, a person who is only interested in taking pictures of the mountain will only see it as a picturesque, majestic, or imposing. These two people use their free will to make different choices about the same object. This example is an interesting way of showing how human beings’ freedom of consciousness makes them view an object by interpreting it using the choices that they have at any particular moment. On the other hand, the extent of someone’s free will can only be tested in the light of the present situation. A person who is interested in climbing a mountain today will have a completely different view of the same object when he is interested in painting it in the future. This scenario also vilifies most of the judgments people pass on their fellow human beings.
Although Sartre’s philosophy is forward and straight to the point, I do not agree with his argument on the freedom that is possessed by human beings. When interpreted, Sartre’s philosophy can mean that a person’s freedom cannot be taken away from him/her. According to Sartre, a person’s freedom can only be effected through interference on his ‘being’. This means a person’s freedom is sustained even in the event of his inflicted demise. This argument is difficult to apply in the practical world. In the context of the modern world it would be hard to support an argument that no matter what you do to a person (even if it is jailing, maiming, or killing him/her), you cannot take away his/her freedom. On the other hand, sustaining the philosophy that human beings are to blame for their statures in life.
Another shortcoming that applies to Sartre’s philosophy is the argument that “freedom is merely the ability to wish what one wants, not achieve it” (Stewart 312). In my view, our wishes as human beings are tantamount to dreams unless they materialize. Our wishes are not in any way a reflection of our freedom as Sartre would have us believe. Essentially, Sartre pits his definition of freedom against all other popular perceptions among human beings. Existential freedom as described by Sartre is to some extent controversial. For example, to Sartre, a prisoner of war is free, existentially, but this freedom does not exist in the physical realm. This argument can only suffice through the written word but it fails to satisfy practical situations.
Works Cited
Caws, Peter. Sartre, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 2009. Print.
Gutting, Gary. French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Howells, Christina. The Cambridge Companion to Sartre, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenology Essay on Ontology, Washington Square Press, 1992. Print.
Solomon, Robert. Existentialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Stewart, Jon. “Merleau-Ponty’s Criticisms of Sartre’s Theory of Freedom.” Philosophy Today 39.3 (2005): 311-324. Print.