Philosophy of Ethics

What value can vary, but overall I suppose kindness, love, forgiveness, understanding, etc. But I also can’t really hate someone for not being so. Because with almost any unethical behavior, I can see the reasoning behind most acts that are argued to be unethical and can see ways to argue both for and against it. Even murder has its pros and cons and does not necessarily represent all that there is to the person that is committing the act. It is here that I find an ethical issue and a reason of importance to studying ethics. To understand them. They affect us in our day to day lives and they help protect our basic human needs. They cause us to work towards and strive towards what it is in the world that we want to see and achieve.

In this paper, I will be discussing the philosophies regarding ethical and moral decisions brought up by Immanuel Kant in Foundational Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism, Friedrich Nietzsche in The Gay Science, Søren Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling, and Jean-Paul Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism. By studying and discussing these five different philosophers’ viewpoint on ethics, my goal will be to uncover which philosophy can best be used to determine what is and is not ethical and live a moral life.

“I mean: to the great majority it is not contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly without first becoming aware of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterwards: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this 'great majority'. But what are good heartedness, refinement, and genius to me when the person possessing these virtues tolerates slack feelings in his believing and judging and when he does not consider the desire for certainty to be his inmost craving and deepest need - as that which separates the higher human beings from the lower!” (Nietzsche 76). In The Gay Science, Nietzsche explains the idea that one should celebrate life as is and not deny it. His proposal is that one must think about what is right and what is wrong as it is important in his eyes for one to know what it is that they value. This is what he calls one’s intellectual conscience.

“The question in each and every thing, “Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?” would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?” (Nietzsche 274). Nietzsche explains in The Gay Science that he believes that we should strive to live a life that we would want to live over and over again. Every good moment and every bad moment would repeat. This in his eyes in the key to being happy and ethical.

“Anyway, it was one of Maman’s ideas, and she often repeated it, that after a while you could get used to anything” (Camus 77). This is a quote in Albert Camus’ The Stranger said by Meursault as he lays in jail. I believe that this, an example of creating meaning in life by believing that one can get used to anything, is an ethical dilemma. I believe it is ethical to try to create meaning wherever you can, however when it comes to the idea that one should focus on getting used to any given circumstance lies somewhere between that which is unethical and that which merely can lead to what is unethical (therefore in a sense making it unethical). While one must remember that what is ethical vs unethical is subjective and often cultural or circumstantial, the common conception in our modern American society is that premeditated and senseless murder is bad. Given Meursault’s logic, one can get used to murdering someone. And when it comes to adjusting to and getting used to what is considered to be good in life on the other hand, if one is simply used to the good, it ceases to be good as it ceases to require one’s consciousness whether by choice or by appreciation.

“That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her. “So why marry me, then?” she said. I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married” (Camus 41). This is another example of an ethical dilemma. In Meursault’s specific circumstances, he is being fully open and honest with Marie. He is not leading her on. He is not hurting her. There is even some sort of bond between them that has even allowed them to get to this point where Marie would ask about marriage. Due to these circumstances, it seems as if Meursault is in fact not doing anything that would be considered unethical.

I am working under the assumption that Meursault does use and have an intellectual conscience as there is no way to know for sure that anyone does due to subjectivity, and also that it does seem as if Meursault has premeditated values that he holds to. Keeping this in mind, he technically does meet Nietzsche’s criteria. However, of course it can be understood why Nietzsche never would have imagined a man like Meursault to exist. Regardless, Meursault does make the decision at some point in his life to create this as a value by taking his mother’s advice stating that one can get used to anything which inherently either proves Meursault has an intellectual conscience and therefore makes his actions as ethical and his view of his life to be a positive one OR proves Nietzsche’s formula for living a good and moral life as invalid.

Taking this into account, that Meursault is living by his premeditated values, it can be observed that Meursault is in fact living the way he wants which includes his value of adjusting to one’s circumstances. Due to this, and due to his closing statements in the book, it can only be assumed that Meursault would in fact find joy in reliving his life. Once again, this would either prove Meursault as acting ethically and living a happy life OR proves Nietzsche’s formula for living a good and moral life as invalid.

When debating the ethics behind Meursault’s indifference to love and marriage, one must keep in mind that Meursault’s view on what does and doesn't matter is in fact premeditated. While Meursault does not specifically explain to the audience's reasoning behind why marriage specifically does not matter, Camus does make it clear to us throughout the book that Meursault’s indifference is in fact his value. Therefore, Meursault does in fact have the intellectual conscience, at least to come degree, that Nietzsche describes.

In addition to that, it is seen that Meursault is content with his indifference to love and marriage. It was his choice, and causes him no hard. He has found contentment in his life that allows him to feel this way. And by being content with his life, I see no reason why he would not be content or even happy should ever be given to the opinion to live it over and over again.

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 7). In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill explains that actions can be measured by how much happiness they create or how much happiness they take away. Mill believes that the only way to live a good, happy, and moral life also must involve curating happiness for others as well, not sure for ourself. He explains that the goal is about creating as much good as possible, for as many people as possible, and that that is the goal. He describes this in what he calls “the principle of utility” (or Greatest Happiness Principle), as his theory that whatever creates happiness is good and whatever takes away happiness is bad.

I semi agree with Mill that happiness, and the avoidance of pain, is the goal of life. I think Mill is correct that that is the natural order of life and way of people, but not that it is the goal due to the fact that they is not way to attain and complete this goal. People strive for their whole lives to create and maintain this. The only time that people do the opposite, is when they put aside their own happiness for the sake of others happiness. The only problem with this however, is that people often do not know what it is that will make them happy. Not only are they given an idea of what happiness should look like (often by society and the media), but they are also fed an idea of a higher than attainable level of happiness. People dream and desire a life without pain, but the permanent avoidance of pain as humans is unrealistic. And when people do attain happiness, either they expect it to stay, or they just get back on their hedonic treadmill (which is basically the theory that people always return to their normal level of happiness regardless of what happens to them) which then causes them to desire and seek out even more happiness.

Sympathy is basically when you have not gone through something but feel bad for someone who is going through that something. When it comes to strangers, it is empathy that is a lot easier to have up until the moment when we are faced with a strangers problems, if we feel anything for them at all, when they are right in front of us (weather it is seeing a disaster on TV or seeing a homeless person as you are walking down the street), and it is then that we take the problems upon ourselves and turn it into sympathy. “The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator….[What this means is] that a direct impulse to promote the general good may be in every individual one of the habitual motives of action, and the sentiments connected therewith may fill a large and prominent place in every human being’s sentient existence” (Mill 17). If you think about when we read a book or watch a movie, when we start that book or movie we do not know that character, and usually it is not even someone who exists, but we develop a sense of sympathy for those characters, but usually only as we get to know those characters. I personally struggle a lot with having any sympathy for others, probably due to my messed up past, and it is a lot easier for me to have empathy if anything, therefore it is a tiny bit harder for me to properly analyze this about humans. I definitely see it a lot in other people, but there is not a way for me to know for sure if sympathy/empathy is self-motivated/created or if it is a selfless feeling in each circumstance.

Mill also discusses in his book about how our desire and impulse for justice comes from self-defense and sympathy. Mill explains that animals, like humans, have natural instincts of self-defense, however, unlike animals, humans also have sympathy. “Now it appears to me that the desire to punish a person who has done harm to some individual is a spontaneous outgrowth from two sentiments both in the highest degree natural and which either are or resemble instincts: the impulse of self-defense and the feeling of sympathy. [Mill goes on to further explain that] by virtue of his superior intelligence, even apart from his superior range of sympathy, a human being is capable of apprehending a community of interest between himself and the human society of which he forms a part, such that any conduct which threatens the security of the society generally is threatening to his own, and calls forth his instinct (if instinct it be) of self-defense. The same superiority of intelligence, joined to the power of sympathizing with human beings generally, enables him to attach himself to the collective idea of his tribe, his country, or mankind in such a manner that any act hurtful to them raises his instinct and urges him to resistance” (Mill 52). Mill makes sure to draw attention to the fact that “the natural feeling of retaliation or revenge…is exclusively subordinated to the social sympathies, so as to wait on and obey their call” (Mill 52). Essentially, Mill argues that that makes the justice brought on by humans as a moral one. He believes that our desire and impulse for justice comes from self-defense and sympathy.

In regards to whether or not I believe that Mill is correct in his statement regarding the connection between self-defense, sympathy, and justice, I think that it all comes down to the sympathy. By that I mean that the line between justice and and revenge is a very fine one. While both of them are equally connected to self-defense, what separates the two is simply sympathy. Justice and revenge are both possible effects in reaction to injustice. In my opinion, the only other difference between the two is that revenge is taking justice into your own hands, at the sake of the community and in opposition of the fellow feeling and utility.

In Camus’ The Stranger, we are presented with the unethical idea that one should find meaning in their life through the ability to get used to anything. And while I do not think that Mill’s philosophy provides an adequate guidance for determining if Meursault in The Stranger is actually acting ethical here or not (due to the necessity of first needing to determine and prove Mill’s philosophy as best/true and therefore able to use as measurement for anything), it does however definitely not match us with Meursault’s behaviors making it unethical by Mill’s standard alone. At first glance, this lines up with half of Mill’s principle of utility by acting as a prevention of pain for the person who is acting this way, but it then goes against that by having the possible side effect of potentially creating pain for others. It also does go against Mill’s principle of utility by diminishing the necessity and attaining of happiness, both for you and for those around you, which in turn diminishes the fellow feeling that would otherwise be present. And while it could be argued that this could be the ultimate form of self-defense, it in turn would extinguish sympathy and therefore justice as well.

The other example of unethical behavior that Meursault demonstrates, his indifference to love and marriage, lines up very similarly to everything I discussed in the previous paragraph other than the fact this this unethical dilemma does not seem to connect to Mill’s topic of justice whatsoever. It can however be compared to Mill’s principle of utility as it protects Meursault from potential pain, but also keeps him from gaining pleasure. And while in The Stranger Meursault’s girlfriend Marie seems to not be too hurt by Meursault’s indifference towards love and marriage, Meursault is nevertheless also withholding pleasure from her as well due to his indifference. This in a sense also deems this behavior as unethical in Mill’s eyes.

Reason is the ability to think things through and understand. It in hand is the ability to determine probabilities, outcomes, and even reasons behind actions or events. It is the power of the mind, and is often considered to be the opposite of emotion.

Kant’s ideas on reason and moral law is based on what he calls the categorical imperative. He believes that to determine what is moral you must be able to base it off of reason and then to also be willing to will it universally. “For Kant, moral laws have to be based solely in reason, and not in anything having to do with our feelings, inclinations, or goals. He worried that because things like feelings change, they can’t be very good grounds for determining what we should and what we shouldn’t do. Reason, on the other hand, presumably does not change; a logical argument always has the same necessary answer. Kant introduces a guideline for figuring out what reason tells us is moral. He calls this the “categorical imperative,” a word which means a command you must follow. He formulates this in different ways, but one of the best ways of understanding what he means by it is captured in the following sentence: Act in such a way that the maxim (the rule) of your action can be willed to be universal law. By this, he means that we should always test to see if the rule that we would use to guide us in a particular moral choice would be something we would want everyone to do always. That would be universal, just as something like the law of gravity is universal.” (Kant 8, 9, 14, 15). Overall, for Kant, it simply comes down to can it reasonably and logically be applied universally, and if so, then it is moral.

In my opinion, while reason does protect us from negative effects caused by our actions, it does not provide us with the fire needing to grow and live a better life. Think of it like reason is our shelter and feelings and desires are our food. We need both. Plus, if we only determine what is moral based off of logic and not emotions, then that opens the door to the ability for us to walk straight into pain.

I disagree with Kant that our individual moral laws should be universal moral laws that everyone in the world should follow. Not only would that in part damage and diminish having different cultures along with individuality, but it is also not possible. In an ideal world, maybe that would be ideal. But in the world we live in, it would be immoral to request that all the world shares the same morals.

When determining if Meursault’s decision to find his meaning in life by simply getting used to anything is the right thing to do or not, reason, for the most part, reflects positively on this decision if the goal of life is one own’s happiness alone as you are then protecting emotionally from the pain life has to offer. In a sense, it gets rid of both hope and fear. While fear is an obvious negative emotion, it is a misconception that hope is a positive feeling or even that it is happiness, due to the fact that hope is simply an anticipation of the happiness. It is not the end goal. And given that it can not alone produce the end of goal of happiness, but can however produce pain if what you hope for does not come about, it can be argued that one’s protection against these two things is rational. However, I would not say that this should be applied without exception. To argue that acting this way universally without exception would in some cases work against one’s autonomy as it would allow and cause people to get used to stuff such as being tortured to the point of not caring enough to escape and to get used to murdering people. Therefore all in all, while one may be able to logically deduce the effects it may have in protecting oneself from pain, that is only a logical decision about emotions that ends up benefiting no one but yourself nor can it be applied universally.

As for Meursault’s unethical behavior of choosing to view love and marriage indifferently, the only place that reason can be applied here is through opinions. Opinions about marriage (such as that marriage is only a creation of religion and government. Or that marriage is just a piece of paper. Or that marriage is a sacred thing. Or that a marriage with a like minded individual (if religious) brings you closer to God. That love is beautiful, dangerous, simply chemicals, etc). Therefore reason is not something that would be helpful in determining what is or is not the right thing to do here. Kant’s challenge for us to apply this universally however would also be not the most helpful as it leaves us with a negative result. I do not believe this is something that should be applied universally due to the many different cultures, religions, and society we have out there, however, due the the fact that not one single person can speak for each of those cultures or societies, no one person would be able to universally say that it would be better for everyone.

I still stand by my belief that it is Hebrews 11:1 that best define faith: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”. For faith is the complete trust and assurance in someone or something (and in this case God). And the Greek origin of the word assurance also means conviction. So part of faith if having a conviction about what you can not see. As for hope, hope and faith are very intertwined as wherever our hope resides, our faith resides also. Faith is the present and hope is the future. And it is hope that helps deeply ingrain the roots of one’s faith. I do believe this can even be seen in the story of Abraham and Isaac as Abraham showed assurance in his belief and trust in God, and his hope that God had a plan that was beyond his own understanding. He had assurance, conviction, and hope in God and God’s plan despite the fact that he could not see, know, or understand it. And it is that combination that I believe makes faith.

I do believe that faith is a choice. It is a conscious choice that needs to be chosen again and again each morning. For some, this choice may become easier with repetition and time, but not always. Even for those who grew up in a faith based household since birth, they too need to make the choice which can be seen when you see people in those situations come of age and feel like it has just been shoved down their throats. Due to the important tie that choice has with faith, I do believe that reason is closely tied as well. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, part of what faith is is conviction and to make a conviction one must use reason. Therefore, one must use reason to make the choice to have faith and the convictions to stand behind and have that faith. However, by definition, faith goes beyond reason. One must use reason to first decide to step out on faith.

But, by that logic, it also than must be mentioned that it is also reason that can cause someone to go back on their faith. Therefore, part of having true faith is to agree in some sense to continue blindly without reason once to do make the decision to have faith.

Kierkegaard believes that there are steps that everyone must go through in order to have faith. “In Kierkegaard’s understanding of the dialectics of faith in God, the first movement is infinite resignation. What this means is that a knight of faith genuinely accepts with all their heart, mind, and soul that what they want, or what they have been promised, is absolutely impossible. The second movement works off the first movement. This movement involves pain and a higher level of spiritual thinking and understanding. The knight of faith first experiences the pain of knowing with all their heart and soul that what they want is impossible. However, because they have accepted this fact, they develop a higher level of spiritual understanding about it, and this is why they experience a sense of peace and contemplation in pain. The third movement of faith is belief in the absurd. In this movement, a knight of faith believes what is absolutely impossible is possible by God. They experience a sense of joy in their belief in the absurd because they have faith that God will make the impossible possible. And of course, their ability to have faith, to believe in the absurd and rejoice in it, is only possible because they have genuinely accepted what they want is impossible (1st movement), and have found peace and contemplation in the pain of this impossibility (2nd movement). Faith in the absurd stresses the fact that the knight of faith believes no matter what that the impossible is possible by God” (pp. 70-75). In summary, he believes that the first step is to know what it is you want from your life and also to know and accept that faith in God is faith in the impossible. And because it is faith in the impossible, this produces pain. Kierkegaard believes that dealing with that pain is the next step as he believes that that will lead to a higher understanding and therefore faith. Each of these steps, according to Kierkegaard, produces faith as it allows you to believe that the impossible can become possible by God’s hand.

I believe that each of these things do occur in those that have faith in God, but not necessarily in that order nor do I believe any of most of these are necessarily a requirement of what faith is. Faith in God does include believing that God can make the impossible possible, but faith is more than just this. In addition, while faith does often produce pain, it is not reliant on that pain. On the other hand, pain does produce perseverance and makes faith stronger.

According to Kierkegaard, when it comes to a teleological suspension of ethics, faith allows people to believe that their unethical actions will actually work out with a better result. It is this that allowed Abraham to do what God commanded of him. Even though he knew that what he was about to do was unethical, he had faith in God and God’s plan.

For Kierkegaard, the story of Abraham shows the teleological suspension of the ethical. As Kierkegaard states, “Abraham is the father of faith and his story contains a teleological suspension of the ethical. He has, as the single individual, become higher than the universal” (p. 95). What Kierkegaard means by this is that Abraham becomes a ‘single individual’ through his direct relationship with God, not through his relationship with this world. He is ‘higher’ than this world because he is God’s confidant. For Kierkegaard, the end point (the teleological point) is God not the universal (the world). Because the end point is God, Abraham suspends what he knows is ethical, and indeed what the world universally knows is the right thing to do for everyone at all times. We all know it is unethical to sacrifice a son. Kierkegaard uses the word ‘suspension’ because he wants to emphasize that this world’s ethics should not be done away with or negated. It’s just that in particular instances, a knight of faith like Abraham must suspend this world’s ethics to obey the commands of God.” When it comes to Abraham, and faith in God in general, it is important to remember the teachings that everything that is good and holy comes from God. In knowing this, it simply becomes a matter of realizing that through his faith, Abraham was able to rationalize that despite that what God was asking for him to do is considered morally wrong by worldly standards, it was coming from God and therefore could not possibly be wrong.

Today, we live in a world built on the Bible’s ethics. More specifically and dominantly, the New Testament’s ethics. That does not by any means that people in today’s world actually follow and act on what the Bible says is ethical, but today’s society does still agree with those ethics (ie that it is unethical to cheat, lie, steal, kill, ect). Therefore today, there no longer is any examples or needs of teleological suspension. The ONLY example I can think of is that the Bible says that in comparison to how much we love God, our love for our family should look like hate. Back then in Abraham's time however, before the New Testament, the Bible presented a much different standard of what was and wasn't ethical. There was the Jews and Gentiles. Those that lived by the Old Testament ethical laws and those that lived by their own ethical laws. And back then, there is more than plenty of examples of teleological suspension. In the Old Testament there are more than plenty of examples of God promoting/causing war, murder, ect. From a theological and biblical perspective, God’s actions back then that we today deem unethical were in order to get people back then to repent and to get us to a place to be ready for the New Testament. But nowadays, the teleological suspension is no longer necessary or present in society.

Meursault tell us that the magistrate “took out a silver crucifix which he brandished as he came toward me, and in a completely different, almost cracked voice, he shouted, “Do you know what this is?” I said, “Yes, of course.” Speaking very quickly and passionately, he told me he believed in God, that it was his conviction that no man was so guilty that God would not forgive him, but in order for that to happen a man must repent and in so doing become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace all” (Camus 68). The magistrate demonstrates Kierkegaard's idea in the belief in the absurd in this quote, especially at the end when the magistrate says that men must become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace all. “Embrace all” of course includes the absurd. Which, is something that children are so great at doing. I definitely do agree with this. However, without going into extensive detail about what else one must also do in addition to this (according to the Bible to be forgiven for their sins), I will say that what the magistrate says that man must do for God to forgive him is correct if what the Bible tells us is to be believed.

Choice is the ability to make decisions within your own moral compass or even to chose to ignore your moral compass. I believe that choice is the act of making a decision between a various number of possibilities in any given situation. But that choices only exist where there is freedom.

Whereas I believe that freedom can be simplified down to the ability to make your own choices and also carry out those choices. And that it is a choice to be free. The more choices we have, then the more freedom we have.

Sartre believed that we always have a choice, which basically means we always have absolute freedom. And with absolutely freedom, that means that we also have absolute responsibility. This would mean that anything and everything that happens to us is always our own fault. In addition to this, he believed that humans always choose good over evil, and also that nothing can be good unless it is universally good for everyone. And if one man sees another doing evil, he will then turn around and do evil. “When we say that man chooses himself, not only do we mean that each of us must choose himself, but also that in choosing himself, he is choosing for all men. In fact, in creating the man each of us wills ourselves to be, there is not a single one of our actions that does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose; because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for any of us unless it is good for all” (p. 24). Each action we make sets a precedent for everyone else.

In the sense that your actions to set a precedent for humanity as a whole, I agree with Sartre. If you do not wish for all of humanity to be doing what you were doing, then you probably should not be doing it. However, I do not agree that you are necessarily choosing for all of humanity. Actions do have reactions, Sartre’s example of how if someone sees you doing something they will think it is okay to do it as well is valid, and in a perfect world, everyone should lead by example, however I do not believe that I am responsible for every little action of a complete stranger, maybe even a newborn baby, all the way across the world that I have never heard of nor do I believe they are responsible for my actions. I do believe that is too far of a stretch to claim.

I disagree with Sartre‘s idea that one can never choose evil, and always chooses good. I do think that most people what to choose good, but sometimes choosing evil is easier. There are many examples of this in our world. In class, someone brought up the example of a mother stealing bread to feed her starving family. It is an evil action with the intent of good in the long run. Another example: How frequently people walk past homeless people without giving them their spare change or even looking them in the eye. While the term evil may be a stretch in that circumstance, I do think it is far from good. As for Sartre his argument that nothing could be good for us unless it is good for everyone, I do agree. I do see where he’s coming from. Back to the example of a mother stealing bread for her family, while it may be considered an evil action that leads to good, and is good for her children as they get to be fed, because it is bad for the shopkeeper that she stole from, it is then in turn bad for her as well on an emotional and moral level, even if she chooses to brush those emotions under the rug. Therefore it can not be a good thing for her as it is not a good thing for the shopkeeper. And the only reason it is a good thing for the children is because in this scenario they are left unaware that it is stolen bread. Were they to know the truth, it would teach them bad morals. And if one were to think on a broader scale? It is good that I ate food today because it is good that there is one less starving person in the world.

Sartre argues that everything we do is out of freedom due to the fact that we have choice. Because of this, he claims that everything that happens to us in our life is our responsibility and our fault alone. “Man is free, man is freedom. If, however, God does not exist, we will encounter no values or orders that can legitimize our conduct. Thus, we have neither behind us, nor before us, in the luminous realm of values, any justification or excuse. We are left alone and without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything thing he does. He has no excuses” (p. 29). In summary, he basically argued that we are not free regarding the choice of having freedom,

I do agree that we have freedom because we have choice, and I do believe this stands true regardless of if there is a God or not as choosing to believe in and follow God to begin with is a choice. I do also agree that we are condemned to be free. I did not choose to be born or to have this life. I did not choose to have a choice. I did not choose to be free. I do however disagree that everything that happens in our life is our fault and responsibility alone. I spent the first 21 years of my life living in various abusive situations, while simultaneously never having friends and being bullied, I moved guardians a lot, went to four different high schools, gave the last two years of my life to a really controlling and a abusive polyamorous partner who I grew codependent on even though a few times he almost killed me, and have not seen my parents of two little brothers who meant the world to me in about 7 years. In some of those situations I do see consequences of my choices and struggle not to blame myself, and while I do not like to call any of that freedom, I do kind of see where Sartre is coming from. Sure, I did have the physical choice and freedom to be able to run away as a child (though I never did), however I also did not have the freedom to that due to our legal system. I think that in most circumstances, it is only when we come to what is legal and illegal, and the way our government is set up, that we find a barrier keeping us from saying we have absolute freedom. However, in sense, one could still argue that even then you are free. Someone is still technically free to murder someone, however there will be legal consequences. Therefore in most circumstances, even where the law is not involved, it comes down to making the choice of which outcome is worse that causes us to choose what we do. And it is actually because of that that I argue that choice and freedom are two completely separate things, even though they may occasionally overlap. And because we feel that there is such strong consequences for a lot of things, it is those that make us feel as if we don’t have freedom. And it is there, in our feelings, that more often than not determines not only our actions but also whether or not we consider ourselves to be free.

I do not think that Sartre’s idea of freedom is strong enough to help us do the right thing when confronted with an ethical dilemma, as we still have the barriers of consequences strongly affecting our choices. The freedom creates the consequences, but the consequences create what choice we choose. Sometimes whosever, we do chose to ignore, or subconsciously accept the consequences when we do chose the more evil of two actions, and it is in that sense alone that we have true freedom. The freedom to choose what suffering we are willing to bare. Bringing it back to a child being abused, we did not choose to be abused, but we chose to not live life on the run. We did not have freedom as our choices were limited, but we still had choices, even if there were not good ones.

I do think that Sartre’s philosophies can be applied and tested against Meursault’s decision, but only to an extent, to only find meaning in his life from only his ability to get used to anything. I think that yes, he does have the choice and freedom to do that, and by doing that the negative consequences that restrict his freedom do not bother him. However I think the more helpful philosophy to apply is the responsibility of Meursault making this choice and also the question of is this choice good for all of mankind. And in this circumstance, if all of mankind we to get used to everything the way Meursault does, it wouldn’t really matter as everyone wouldn’t be affected my whatever outcome this decision has.

To then test Sartre’s philosophies against another of Meursault’s actions, his indifference to love and marriage, things get basically work out the same. Because once again, if everyone to feel indifferent in that way, what difference would it make? There would be no more marriage which would get rid of some working people’s jobs and change our economy, but there would be no more broken-hearted people out in the world. It would get rid of both the high highs and low lows of love and marriage. And when something is that neutral, it loses its ability to matter. So because of that, who cares if everyone copied Meursault. If they did, no one would care.

On first instinct, one would likely say that what makes us human would be our emotions. However, many studies have been done over the years to discover the range of emotions that can be found in animals which surprisingly range from anywhere from grief, anger, joy, love, and even jealousy. Therefore, it is more than our emotions. I think, at least in part, it has to do more with what we are able to do with our emotions such as to be humorous and to have ambition. In addition to that, something that sets us apart from the other living animals and things on this planet, is our reason, wisdom, and desire and ability to wonder about questions such as this “What makes us human?”. In that aspect, it can be said that philosophy itself is part of what makes us human. I do believe another crucial difference between us and our peers on this planet would be both culture and creativity. The final crucial aspect that I consider necessary in defining our humanity is our ability to know right and wrong, and to also be a complex mixture of both.

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky brought up the term of one being “muddleheaded” (which can be described as someone who is confused and does not think clearly about things). Fyodor Pavlovich “was a strange type, yet one frequently met with, precisely the type of man who is not only worthless and depraved but muddleheaded as well…he remained all his life one of the most muddleheaded madcaps in our district. Again I say it was not stupidity – most of these madcaps are rather clever and shrewd – but precisely muddleheadedness, even a special, national form of it” (7). I believe that this is an important theme to discuss because if one is to argue that our ability to think and to reason is a large part of what makes us human, than if one were to discuss someone who struggles to do that, would it then be arguable that that person struggles to maintain his or her humanity or even is less human?

Nietzsche, whose philosophy is loosely based upon his believe that we should strive to live a live that we would want to repeat for all eternity, would likely have an interesting (and very opinionated) take on how to help us avoid being muddleheaded. While Nietzsche is very atheist and strongly again religion, he does however see and understand how religion helps create moral guidelines in our society (even though he does also think that these guidelines are too restricting). He believes that religion also helps with the problems of life however that we should replace that with culture such as poetry, music, and philosophy. In addition to this, he also believes in the importance of having a moral compass which is based off of the importance of thinking about what is right and wrong and also know why you have the moral beliefs that you do. By doing so, this would in his eyes help us nurture our minds and therefore allow us to act more ethically.

Mill believes in the importance of a cultivated mind and fellow feeling. So in other words? The exact opposite of muddledheadedness. To do this, he would likely suggest a number of things. First, he would suggest that one focuses and chooses mental pleasures over bodily pleasure. Physical health as well he would find important and helpful in improving one’s mental and emotional health. Mill does not think one needs a degree, simply to be competent judges of oneself and the rest of the world.

Kant believes that what is moral should be considered universally moral. He calls this the Moral Law. He believes that to decide on what is moral or immoral, one can only use reason. Therefore, Kant would likely say that one who is muddleheaded is unable to determine the moral or immoral things to do as he believes that to decide on what is moral or immoral, one can only use reason. Therefore, Kant would likely say that one who is muddleheaded is unable to determine the moral or immoral thing to do as one must be able to logically determine if their actions would be the best thing universally or not.

Kierkegaard believes that we as humans create our own morals. To do so, one must be able to rationally think through humanity and morality to create such things. That being said, Kierkegaard does not value reason above faith. If anything he values faith more. And he believes that to have faith one my go through struggles first. Therefore would he not argue that a muddleheaded person can overcome his/her state by going through trials and/or tribulations?

Sartre thinks that we are forced to be free. He finds it important to create our own meaning in life as well as new habits and traditions as well as being aware of existence. Being aware of all of this can help us avoid being muddleheaded.

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky also brought up the theme of humans being a mixture of both good and evil, light and dark, full of both pride and shame, and capable of both joy and sorrow. “I keep going, and I don’t know: have I gotten into stench and shame, or into light and joy? That’s the whole trouble, because everything on earth is a riddle. And whenever I happen to sink into the deepest, the very deepest shame of depravity (and that’s all I ever happened to do), I always read that poem about Ceres and man. Did it set me right? Never! Because I am a Karamazov. Because when I fall into an abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I’m even pleased that I’m falling in just such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful. And so in that very shame I suddenly begin a hymn. Let me be cursed, let me base and vile, but let me also kiss the hem of that garment in which my God is clothed; let me be following the devil at the same time, but still I am also your son, Lord, and I love you, and I feel joy without which the world cannot stand and be” (107). I do believe that this is a very important theme to think about because it is as a whole, simply who we are. We are capable and full of both the good and bad. And I do believe that that is a large part of what makes us human. However, if one were simply to dismiss this aspect of themselves, or even to dismiss this about other people, they are more likely to find their life being infected with the bad. One must always try to seek and remember the good as well. And the do also work hand in hand to create each other as well. The good in life makes the bad seem worse and the bad makes the good seem better. One can not seek and find the good if they do not understand the good in ourselves and in life as well as the bad.

Nietzsche believes in overcoming our circumstances, therefore I highly doubt he would want us to acquire the feeling of shame that would cause us to emotionally sit in the past. He does not believe in numbing pain and believes in changing our lives for the better. He also wants us to face up to our true desires. He also believes in the importance of having a moral compass. He believes in the importance of thinking about what is right and wrong and also know why you have the moral beliefs that you do. All of this would help us become aware of what it is we want to avoid and therefore help us avoid immorality and therefore shame.

Mill’s philosophy rests strongly on his belief that the goal of life is happiness and that everything we do is in pursuit of this. Mill believes that in order to attain this we must cultivate ourselves and our fellow feeling. Mill also believes that if what you are doing is wrong, then it will create pain. By being aware of these two things, one should be able to develop a better ability to notice and determine what is right and wrong.

Kant’s advice in how to avoid shame would likely be simple. He considers what is moral vs immoral to only be determinable by applying it universally to then decide if it is the right thing to do or not. Would you will this action to be universal? Or this moral? By applying this thinking to all of your actions, one should be able to avoid immorality and its effect of shame.

Kierkegaard is known to laugh at life's horrors. He believes that unhappiness is part of life and therefore is inevitably unavoidable. Shame being a part of this. I think his advice would likely be to realize that life is meaningless life and one should keep moving forwards and not to get stuck in shame which is useless.

Sartre argues that while we are forced to be free, we should however create our own meaning in life as well as new habits and traditions. By doing this, one can break out of whatever pattern of immoral habits occurring in their life that is creating shame.

“You must know that there is nothing higher, or stronger, or sounder, or more useful afterwards in life, than some good memory, especially a memory from childhood…You hear a lot about your education, yet some such beautiful, sacred memory, preserved from childhood, is perhaps the best education. If a man stores up many such memories to take into life, than he is saved for his whole life. And even if only one good memory remains with us in our hearts, that alone may serve some day for our salvation.” I do not believe that good memories in our childhood necessarily creates good in us or vise versa. I believe that while our childhood does shape who we are, it is not as black and white or predictable as that. Nor do I believe that we can just learn our morals in a classroom. I think creating our morals is a mixture of our life events and childhood, both the good and the bad moments, mixed with general life experience. This in part can be why our morals sometimes change with age.

The philosopher that I believe creates the best ethical theory would be John Stuart Mill whose philosophy is that one’s moral worth is made up of the amount of happiness their actions produce but also for the largest number of people. While I do think that all of the philosophies discussed in this paper do help to some extent to determine if an action is morally wrong, it would be Mill’s that best determines which action is morally best. Partially became it is more focused on happiness and the avoidance of pain, but also because it takes into account the number of people it helps vs hurts as well.

Work Cited

Camus, Albert. The Stranger. New York: Vintage International/Vintage Books, 1988. Print.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1990. Print.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling. London: Penguin Classics, 1985. Print

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1981. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2001. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. New York: Vintage, 1974. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Print.