Being and Nothingness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Being and Nothingness » Being and Nothingness

Page: 1 2

Being and Nothingness

rosendahla
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/25/09 - 12:52 PM: Subject: Being and Nothingness	#1
If I understand correctly, Sartre considers the concept of morality a part of "bad faith". What would his response be if asked if a serial killer should act on his impulses, and not subscribe to morality. Again, this is just my understanding thus far, and I am looking for a broader one.

Jubal Harshaw
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 48

Posted 08/25/09 - 07:07 PM:	#2
rosendahla wrote: If I understand correctly, Sartre considers the concept of morality a part of "bad faith". What would his response be if asked if a serial killer should act on his impulses, and not subscribe to morality. Again, this is just my understanding thus far, and I am looking for a broader one. The funny thing about that is, serial killers tend to be physiologically different from well-adjusted humans. These physiological differences, I believe, are evidence of evolution dictating behavior. Is it farfetched to consider the range of emotions (including guilt) humans have as a consequence of adaptation for survival?

Bboyamir
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/25/09 - 11:02 PM:	#3
Great answer, jabal, but I think he was asking about sartre's stance on the issue and not your personal opinion. You'll find that Sartre doesn't care about the specific consequences of an action, but rather the means that went into choosing that action. If the murderer chooses to kill resolutely , without giving excuses but rather simply taking the responsibility for his choice, then he can't be guilty of bad faith.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 08/26/09 - 06:23 AM:	#4
rosendahla wrote: If I understand correctly, Sartre considers the concept of morality a part of "bad faith". What would his response be if asked if a serial killer should act on his impulses, and not subscribe to morality. Again, this is just my understanding thus far, and I am looking for a broader one. I suggest his response would vary. In "ordinary day to day life" as some are fond of calling it, he would probably, if perhaps grudgingly, admit he thinks the serial killer should not kill. Wearing his philosopher's hat, however, he would probably spend a great deal of time wondering why the serial killer should not kill, and ultimately arrive at an ambiguous conclusion.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 08/26/09 - 01:56 PM:	#5
ciceronianus wrote: I suggest his response would vary. In "ordinary day to day life" as some are fond of calling it, he would probably, if perhaps grudgingly, admit he thinks the serial killer should not kill. Wearing his philosopher's hat, however, he would probably spend a great deal of time wondering why the serial killer should not kill, and ultimately arrive at an ambiguous conclusion. And you're basing this on...? @ the OP: Sartre left an unfinished work on ethics when he died, published as Carnets pour une morale. I haven't read it, but I imagine that would be a good place to start. L'existentialisme est un humanisme and Cahiers d'une drôle de guerre both contain some ethics material as well.
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 08/26/09 - 02:37 PM:	#6
makerowner wrote: ciceronianus wrote: I suggest his response would vary. In "ordinary day to day life" as some are fond of calling it, he would probably, if perhaps grudgingly, admit he thinks the serial killer should not kill. Wearing his philosopher's hat, however, he would probably spend a great deal of time wondering why the serial killer should not kill, and ultimately arrive at an ambiguous conclusion. And you're basing this on...? Well, all human actions are on principle doomed to failure, as the old sourpuss himself would say, so I'm taking him at his word and concluding he would be doomed to fail in any philosophical consideration of the issue, and be ambiguous at best. But, I'm willing to credit him with the belief that serial killers should not kill, when not engaged in philosophical considerations. Now that I think of it, though, I may be giving him too much credit, given his high regard for Stalin. But, no doubt he felt there are serial killers and then there are serial killers. Edited by ciceronianus on 08/26/09 - 02:42 PM
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 08/26/09 - 03:25 PM:	#7
ciceronianus wrote: makerowner wrote: ciceronianus wrote: I suggest his response would vary. In "ordinary day to day life" as some are fond of calling it, he would probably, if perhaps grudgingly, admit he thinks the serial killer should not kill. Wearing his philosopher's hat, however, he would probably spend a great deal of time wondering why the serial killer should not kill, and ultimately arrive at an ambiguous conclusion. And you're basing this on...? Well, all human actions are on principle doomed to failure, as the old sourpuss himself would say, so I'm taking him at his word and concluding he would be doomed to fail in any philosophical consideration of the issue, and be ambiguous at best. But, I'm willing to credit him with the belief that serial killers should not kill, when not engaged in philosophical considerations. No, all human actions aren't doomed to failure in Sartre's philosophy, only the desire to be God is doomed to failure; that is what makes man a "failed passion". Sartre spent most of his life as a political activist, so he clearly didn't think his actions were doomed to failure. In his "philosophical considerations" he developed arrived at a completely unambiguous conclusion supporting communism, so why shouldn't he be able to do so for the considerably less controversial belief that serial killers shouldn't kill? I'll again point out that he wrote a long work on ethics that I'm guessing you haven't read, which makes criticizing his moral philosophy rather silly, don't you think? Now that I think of it, though, I may be giving him too much credit, given his high regard for Stalin. But, no doubt he felt there are serial killers and then there are serial killers. Classing Stalin (or Hitler, etc.) as a serial killer only confuses the issue of the legitimacy of government use of force; distinguishing dictators from serial killers doesn't make them any less reprehensible. Sartre's support for Stalin was temporary, from 1952-1956 according to Wikipedia; I'm not saying he's blameless, just that the phrase "his high regard for Stalin" is seriously misleading. I should note that I'm no Sartrian; I think there's a lot of silliness in his philosophy, and that the silliest points are precisely the ones that seem to have the widest appeal. What I'm against here is your "suggestion" based on a vague idea of "what he's like", rather than actually reading what he has to say on the topic and criticizing that.
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

btracz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 08/26/09 - 06:55 PM:	#8
A better understanding is gained by knowing how "facticity," that is, the simply reality of things-in-themselves, relates to bad faith. Sartre's metaphysics has dualist underpinnings in the sense that the subject (the will) is absolutely and unconditionally free in a way that contrasts from objects (things-in-themselves). I refer you to the quote in Being and Nothingness: My freedom is the unique foundation of values and nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies me in adopting this or that particular value, this or that particular scale of value… My freedom is anguished at being the foundation of values while itself without foundation. (Sartre, 38) Bad faith for Sartre is acting against your own set values (this actually compares to Kant's moral philosophy in the sense that both marvel at the subject's ability to make laws by itself, for itself). Thus, the whole murder scenario, Sartre would say, would depend on your own convictions. Killing somebody (see Camus' The Stranger) might be bad or might not be bad depending on the mental attitude of the subject towards the object (recall also that in Being in Nothingness that "the other" is distinctly an object as described in the section entitled "Concrete Relations with Others"). Thus, killing might be moral for you at a given time, but not moral for me at another time. It should be noted that Sartre, while espousing a rather inconsistent and often obscurantist philosophy, was a humanitarian and a rather kind man. My professor at Boston College, Prof. Richard Cobb-Stevens, knew him personally as an odd but never-the-less kind man. Sartre would have found murder personally repulsive.

Erik
Professor

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Location: Sierra Madre, CA

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 623

Posted 08/27/09 - 10:33 AM:	#9
btracz wrote: Bad faith for Sartre is acting against your own set values (this actually compares to Kant's moral philosophy in the sense that both marvel at the subject's ability to make laws by itself, for itself). Thus, the whole murder scenario, Sartre would say, would depend on your own convictions. Killing somebody (see Camus' The Stranger) might be bad or might not be bad depending on the mental attitude of the subject towards the object (recall also that in Being in Nothingness that "the other" is distinctly an object as described in the section entitled "Concrete Relations with Others"). Thus, killing might be moral for you at a given time, but not moral for me at another time. Having very little familiarity with Sartre, I'm wondering what he means when he refers to "the other" as an object? Would this be his way of rejecting Kant's (and others) idea that human beings are never to be treated as mere objects, as means to an end, but rather as fellow subjects with intrinsic worth? Is there no ontological distinction between types of beings other than the "self" (for-itself?) in Sartre? No difference between a chair, a rock, an ant, a human being? That's absolutely absurd, especially for someone who follows the phenomenological method, and I hope that I'm just misunderstanding his position on this issue. Even Heidegger distinguished between present-at-hand entities, ready-to-hand ones, dasein, etc. which allowed him to formulate a vague notion of dasein-with to underpin a sort of communal ethics. But Heidegger was also aware that the Cartesian starting point was untenable, a point which Sartre apparently didn't share. Maybe I'll look for the work on ethics that makerowner made reference to clear up the issue.
I adore simple pleasures. They are the last refuge of the complex. Oscar Wild

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 08/27/09 - 11:25 AM:	#10
makerowner wrote: No, all human actions aren't doomed to failure in Sartre's philosophy, only the desire to be God is doomed to failure; that is what makes man a "failed passion". Sartre spent most of his life as a political activist, so he clearly didn't think his actions were doomed to failure. In his "philosophical considerations" he developed arrived at a completely unambiguous conclusion supporting communism, so why shouldn't he be able to do so for the considerably less controversial belief that serial killers shouldn't kill? I'll again point out that he wrote a long work on ethics that I'm guessing you haven't read, which makes criticizing his moral philosophy rather silly, don't you think? Well, I have criticized him, in any case, and feel quite free to do so. Perhaps not his moral philosophy though--unless, of course, your extensive reading leads you to feel he would applaud the efforts of the serial killer. The quote about human action is one of his bon mots, of course. But no doubt his works, much like scripture, can be quoted for improper purposes. And I'm sure the work you refer to is interminable. makerowner wrote: Classing Stalin (or Hitler, etc.) as a serial killer only confuses the issue of the legitimacy of government use of force; distinguishing dictators from serial killers doesn't make them any less reprehensible. Sartre's support for Stalin was temporary, from 1952-1956 according to Wikipedia; I'm not saying he's blameless, just that the phrase "his high regard for Stalin" is seriously misleading. I should note that I'm no Sartrian; I think there's a lot of silliness in his philosophy, and that the silliest points are precisely the ones that seem to have the widest appeal. What I'm against here is your "suggestion" based on a vague idea of "what he's like", rather than actually reading what he has to say on the topic and criticizing that. The reference to Stalin was not intended to be a profound statement regarding government action, but to point out that Sartre was, shall we say, sometimes inclined to take Stalinism--and mass murder--perhaps too lightly (is that better?) much as he did with the killings of the Israeli athletes at Munich. Certainly,a great deal of silliness. But, I tend to be silly as well, particularly when it comes to poking fun at Sartre and figures like him, which I confess I enjoy. And, really, I have tried to read him--my copy of Being and Nothingness is no doubt still in a box in my house somewhere. I actually managed to get through some of that ponderous work.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.