does universal moral condition imply limits on an indiviuals freedom
2007-03-28 07:41:29 · 6 answers · asked by toe t 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
don't know
2007-03-28 07:44:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Until about a month or so before his death, Sartre believed that existence preceded essence and that man was "condemned" to having the freedom to do what he thought correct.
Near the end of his life he REFUTED all of this idea plus also acknowledged that he had been wrong even to the extent that there is a God....... He said at the least (and on this I happen to agree) that each of us have ingrained tendencies put in our minds/souls that give us the start of essence even at birth. When the tendencies are mixed with our enviroment, parents, education, and friends, we produce actions that increase our essence.
2007-03-28 09:02:32 · answer #2 · answered by scotishbob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For Sartre human existence precedes essence. We make up human nature as we go along. So every time we act, what we do becomes a part of human nature. Therefore, if we lie, cheat, steal, commit murder etc then we make these things part of human nature. It would seem then that the moral constraint on our freedom would be in not wanting these things to be a part of human nature. Of course if for whatever reason an individual does not mind living in a world full of liars, cheaters, thieves and killers, then there would not be much of a constraint on their actions.
2007-03-28 07:52:01 · answer #3 · answered by K 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Substance - Existence - Essence - Freedom - Substance
Enjoy!
2007-03-28 09:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
er...no. The freedom is absolute. There are no moral laws behind which to hide - you are "doomed to be free".
"The existentialist finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist for there disappears with him all possibility of finding values in a heaven. Dostoievsky wrote "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; that is a starting point - man is in consequence forlorn for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself."
2007-03-28 07:48:48 · answer #5 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. he is saying that you gain essence with existence. and you create your own essence.
and when he said "people are condemned to be free" he meant that you should do what makes you happy with out the social contraints of morality
2007-03-28 07:45:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋