Sartre Moral Relativism Analysis

Sartre appears to be a moral relativist because he denies the traditional sources of moral objectivism such as the existence of God, existence of human “nature” and existence of a shared purpose. His rejection of moral relativism is coupled with a rejection of moral realism, the idea that moral facts are independent from the individual and have the ability to track a moral truth. Instead, values are created by the individual, “he makes himself by choosing his own morality, and his circumstances are such that he has no option other than to choose a morality” (Sartre 46). Sartre ambiguously floats somewhere in between the two. He argues those sources of moral objectivism such as God in the Christian faith prove to be “too broad in the scope to …show more content…
Sartre thinks otherwise, “everything happens to every man as if the entire human race were staring at him and measuring himself by what he does” (Sartre 26), which leads me to defend the practicality of Sartre’s philosophy. Early Sartre was fascinated with America, namely our freedom-bearing constitution, however following World War II and amidst our involvement in Vietnam, he revoked his endorsement. Specifically, Sartre said “in the land of equality and liberty live thirteen million untouchables” (Cohen). His stringent take on freedom intrinsically deems him “a defender of freedom” and an advocate for the oppressed. Sartre identified with the term existentialism, but also toyed with Marxism. The influence on his political philosophy is irrefutable. Marxism, however, was often too objective for Sartre, that he argued for a more subjective, situational account. I find much of his contributions regarding systematic oppression would make Sartre a popular sociologist …show more content…
From 1647 onward, public education at a primary level and then, at a secondary level, was a given. It was understood by all that an education was essential for an individual to contribute to society. As society develops, it is now crucial for an individual to have not only a high school diploma, but a four-year degree too. There will always be exception, but there is not doubt that a college degree is the new standard. This being said, “man is the future of man” Sartre would argue an individual who is responsible for willing and affirming his freedom, and willing and affirming the freedom of others, should and would advocate for public education, knowing it “would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility” (Alfred). This responsibility could easily be misunderstood from a capitalist, right-wing perspective, as in the poor and uneducated are entirely responsible for being poor and uneducated, but aforementioned, there is a distinct difference between ontological and meta-physical freedom. A capitalist’s unfettered free market ideology offers no equitable meta-physical freedom; it is competitive and opportunity-denying, an overt denial of Sartre’s freedom for all. Providing 16 years of public education would be the first step to restoring freedom in America, in accordance to Sartre’s