Kaylah Wood
Mr. Z
Feb. 28 2017
Title
To embody the concept of one’s own freewill embodies the concept of existentialism. Individuals are solely responsible their choices; therefore, it is the responsibility of that single person to determine what is “good” and what is “bad”. Society has established a specific moral standard in which most people must abide, which then can encourage some to blame others, or lie about their choices. Morality as described by Sartre, “we define man only in relation to his commitments; it is therefore absurd to reproach us for irresponsibility in our choice” (10a). Sartre continues to describe morality to an artist’s painting, saying, “we never speak of a work of art as irresponsible” (9b), and therefore, one’s …show more content…
For instance, when Camus, in The Stranger refers to his character Meursault, who has a clear lack of empathy for man in general as he murders a man simply because the sun was in his eyes. In this instance, it can be rather conflicting as to whether one should judge Meursault because firstly, Meursault unwaveringly chose to murder this man and found it true for himself to do so. On the other hand, Meursault does not look out for the benefit of man for he has taken a life. In Dostoevky and Kant now: Kant on sublimity and morality by Cherkasova, explains this by saying, “…He acknowledges that autonomy or freedom of moral choice is the essence of the activity of practical reason and the core of moral personality”. The existentialist may consider both side of this situation and ask several questions. Firstly, is Meursault truly deceiving himself? And if perhaps he is, does Meursault live to serve his own passions with no obvious desire to serve anyone else’s? Lastly, can it be true that Meursault’s action was guided by some higher presents in his life, or did he simply act on his own accord? These questions are in fact the very qualifications of judgment. Perhaps if in Camus’s world, Frances judicial system was based on a life of existentialism instead of (perjury,) Meursault would not have been sentenced to death, and asked to be saved by a priest, for Meursault is an existentialist, and knows on some level, to be guided by the laws of God, or of man, would deny him the laws of himself. Regardless of the good or bad of his actions, as it may have been said before; whose responsibility is it to truly judge Meursault, for his actions were solely his own, and despite the magnitude of those actions, he made no effort to put responsibility on anyone but himself. Therefore, it cannot be, in the ways of
Mr. Z
Feb. 28 2017
Title
To embody the concept of one’s own freewill embodies the concept of existentialism. Individuals are solely responsible their choices; therefore, it is the responsibility of that single person to determine what is “good” and what is “bad”. Society has established a specific moral standard in which most people must abide, which then can encourage some to blame others, or lie about their choices. Morality as described by Sartre, “we define man only in relation to his commitments; it is therefore absurd to reproach us for irresponsibility in our choice” (10a). Sartre continues to describe morality to an artist’s painting, saying, “we never speak of a work of art as irresponsible” (9b), and therefore, one’s …show more content…
For instance, when Camus, in The Stranger refers to his character Meursault, who has a clear lack of empathy for man in general as he murders a man simply because the sun was in his eyes. In this instance, it can be rather conflicting as to whether one should judge Meursault because firstly, Meursault unwaveringly chose to murder this man and found it true for himself to do so. On the other hand, Meursault does not look out for the benefit of man for he has taken a life. In Dostoevky and Kant now: Kant on sublimity and morality by Cherkasova, explains this by saying, “…He acknowledges that autonomy or freedom of moral choice is the essence of the activity of practical reason and the core of moral personality”. The existentialist may consider both side of this situation and ask several questions. Firstly, is Meursault truly deceiving himself? And if perhaps he is, does Meursault live to serve his own passions with no obvious desire to serve anyone else’s? Lastly, can it be true that Meursault’s action was guided by some higher presents in his life, or did he simply act on his own accord? These questions are in fact the very qualifications of judgment. Perhaps if in Camus’s world, Frances judicial system was based on a life of existentialism instead of (perjury,) Meursault would not have been sentenced to death, and asked to be saved by a priest, for Meursault is an existentialist, and knows on some level, to be guided by the laws of God, or of man, would deny him the laws of himself. Regardless of the good or bad of his actions, as it may have been said before; whose responsibility is it to truly judge Meursault, for his actions were solely his own, and despite the magnitude of those actions, he made no effort to put responsibility on anyone but himself. Therefore, it cannot be, in the ways of