Ethics for an existentialist?

Question

I consider myself an existentialist. But the question of ethics always troubles me.

As an existentialist I choose to believe in subjectivity. However if there are no objective values doesn't that allow a society where power becomes the arbitor? As an existentialist I can condemn Hilter, but have to admit that he lived an authentic life? If "being-in-itself" and "being-for-itself" are not moral positions but two distinct ways, why should I chose one over the other?

Asphire:

>>Thanks for replying, but I have a few objections and questions to what you said. This is not an attack on you personal beliefs (an existentialist as you know would never do that), butan attempt to understand ethics better


If you try to self-actualize, that is, become the very best person you can be (sounds trite, but that is the goal-to intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and socially mature to the highest being possible-and even produce work that reflect that), you will soon realize you need others to do this. At the moment you realize you need others to become more than you are presently, to hone your intellect and appreciation for the arts and other 'skills', you must let go of an isolated and self-destructing mentality of existentialism.

>>First, I don't know if self-actualization, as you call it is the greatest goal I want to pursue. For the sake of this discussion let's assume the premise to be true. But don't you think that we define not only what w

what we are but what the external world is? This concept is something I belive in very strongly and is one of the reasons I am an existentialist.


Existentialism does not necessarily embrace anything positive-no good will for oneself, or OTHERs/society, etc. It has loaded negativities and allows too much freedom (false, misleading, and destructive freedom) and logically has questionable success prediction for your life.

>> Positive - by this term do you imply objective standards? If so where do we look for them? Inside ourselves, right? Doesn't that brings us back to the existentialist position?

"Being-in-itself" and "being-for-itself" get too entangled in deciphering language nuances, and this is not how I would try to figure out a specific, good formula on how to live.

>> I look at ethics not as a good formula to live. I just need to know if we even should give ethics any thought. If someone can convince me beyond doubt that "Might is right", I will try to be the most powerful man in the world.

I am happy being a humanist/art lover. I am happy just living, not necessarily taking note of my philosophy of life or labeling myself into a corner.

>>Thanks again for the detailed reply. I don't know if being a humanist/art lover/renaissance man will make me lead any better life than what I have now. I am glad that it works for you.

Answer 1

While existentialism may lead you to an authentic life, I have some issues with it. It isn't the best formula for authenticity. I do not understand a philosophy of living that helps you be authentic but possibly disregards all ethics/morality AND may end up self-destructive. Think about it. You start from the premise that "you're condemned to be free" and yes, you can do whatever the hell you please, as long as you're 'authentic'.

As I mentioned before, I believe there are better alternatives, such as basing a philosophy of life at least on humanism/Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the like. If you try to self-actualize, that is, become the very best person you can be (sounds trite, but that is the goal-to intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and socially mature to the highest being possible-and even produce work that reflect that), you will soon realize you need others to do this. At the moment you realize you need others to become more than you are presently, to hone your intellect and appreciation for the arts and other 'skills', you must let go of an isolated and self-destructing mentality of existentialism. Existentialism does not necessarily embrace anything positive-no good will for oneself, or OTHERs/society, etc. It has loaded negativities and allows too much freedom (false, misleading, and destructive freedom) and logically has questionable success prediction for your life.


That is why I let go of existentialism and turned some ideas over in my head such as Aristotelean (Nichomachean) ethics, Maslow's hierarchy or needs, love of humanities (Renaissance ideas), as well as humanism (secular humanism) which all allow for and is highly compatible with an ethical life.

As for Hitler, I disagree he lived an authentic life. Authenticity, the idea of it, is highly misled. How do you know he was authentic or driven by madness? There's no way to prove that. Because person exhibited what seems like extreme self-will does NOT indicate authenticity. Ask yourself "Are lunatics authentic? " Are psychopaths authentic? Not necessarily, and most likely not if they do not have their 'faculties' up there together (if they're mentally ill) yet they can all potently carry out their agendas. Authentic, I ask again... definitely not, considering they are mentally ill. It is because authenticity is closely tied with autonomy. You can only have autonomy if you're still a rational being and if one is mentally ill (which Hitler could have been--we don't know), he definitely was NOT authentic. Thus, I personally condemn Hitler's life, whatever weight that my have.

"Being-in-itself" and "being-for-itself" get too entangled in deciphering language nuances, and this is not how I would try to figure out a specific, good formula on how to live. But if you wish to interpret them, both indicate a highly self-centered, withdrawn way to live. You need not choose either. It's like you've locked yourself in with a very limited number of IDEAS, and please remember these are only ideas. No one commanded you to follow them. You need to critically break apart 'existentialism' and decide what benefit taking this mental framework onto your mind and then behaviorally, can do for you. Yes, if you're presently reading a book on the matter or in lecture studying it, you could be consumed by the idea of authenticity and desire after it, but if you're not knitted into the fabric of society, you're already misled.....................don't get into deep shiit.

Good luck my philosophical person. It's great you're thinking your life out, and personally I have come to the light after going through some wrong choices in mental framework, such as existentialism. I actually became self-loathing and very unethical, atleast in my head. Very dangerous. Be watchful of the crap some of these philosophical ideas will feed you. You need not utilize all, just ones that BENEFIT you and others, because remember that others are influenced by you: you can hurt them or benefit them, with many greys in between.

I am happy being a humanist/art lover. I am happy just living, not necessarily taking note of my philosophy of life or labeling myself into a corner.

Hope you can find it all.

Answer 2

You're right here to reside and do the nice process of it that you'll. What is the which means of existence? Why am I right here? Those are 2 matters I do not provide so much proposal to.. I simply get on with dwelling existence and the whole lot I do, the entire individuals I meet.. that's intent sufficient to be right here. Do you ever wonder whether individuals evaluate matters TOO so much? When you are given a present, do you query the character giving it and ask why you deserved it.. why they gave it to you... what it is motive shall be? I do not.. and I do not query the present of existence both.

Answer 3

Ethics are by definition is the proper execution of ones duty. Whether or not that duty has a moral basis. Ethics are essentially amoral.

Answer 4

If the Universe has no purpose, you will have a purposeless life so what does it matter what your morals are?