Everyone is free because we have the freedom to choose. This is the point that Jean-Paul Sartre makes in his writing “On 'Absolute Freedom '.” His main argument is expanded with the idea that all of us are always free and thus responsible for not only our actions but for our present circumstances. He argues that everyone is responsible for who they are and that everyone is individually defined by their self-conscious choices and their commitment to those choices. “...There are no accidents in life,” he argues (Sartre, 488). Sartre has an extremely strong opinion of responsibility and states that even those who appear to be innocent victims made the choice to be victims. The example he gives us is war. To make this point, Sartre refers
…show more content…
He uses the example of being in a war to illustrate his point. He explains that it may seem that the conscripted soldiers are forced to fight and, therefore, have no freedom; but they still have the freedom to choose. They can make the choice to stay, to run away, or to commit suicide. The reason that most remain fighting is because they weigh the consequences of each action, and make their choice. Therefore, they freely choose to fight and are responsible for both them being in the war, and the war itself. Sartre is technically right; they are choosing to be in the war. But is it really freedom when we are thrust into awful situations and then our options are limited only to things we do not want to do? It ultimately depends on how we define freedom. If it is merely to have a choice, then Sartre is right. But if to have freedom is to be able to do what we truly desire, then we are not always free. I would say that the soldiers would only have freedom if they could choose to not participate in the war without killing themselves or deserting (which could get them killed anyway). What kind of freedom is it when you are faced with either life or
He uses the example of being in a war to illustrate his point. He explains that it may seem that the conscripted soldiers are forced to fight and, therefore, have no freedom; but they still have the freedom to choose. They can make the choice to stay, to run away, or to commit suicide. The reason that most remain fighting is because they weigh the consequences of each action, and make their choice. Therefore, they freely choose to fight and are responsible for both them being in the war, and the war itself. Sartre is technically right; they are choosing to be in the war. But is it really freedom when we are thrust into awful situations and then our options are limited only to things we do not want to do? It ultimately depends on how we define freedom. If it is merely to have a choice, then Sartre is right. But if to have freedom is to be able to do what we truly desire, then we are not always free. I would say that the soldiers would only have freedom if they could choose to not participate in the war without killing themselves or deserting (which could get them killed anyway). What kind of freedom is it when you are faced with either life or