I find Jean-Paul Sartre’s views to be very interesting,
thought provoking, blunt and controversial. One of his views I find to be
particularly interesting: the relationship between responsibility and freedom.
Sartre’s main arguments seem to be that all of us are always
free and thus responsible for not only our own actions but also our
circumstance. Although this view is very thought provoking I cannot say I agree
with this. Sartre uses the example of being in war to illustrate his point; he
says that in times of war, it may seem that many of the soldiers have no
freedom as they are forced to fight but the truth is that they do have choices
such as fleeing the country or committing suicide yet they choice to stay and
fight after weighing their options and believing it to be the best option and
are thus responsible for their actions. I think it’s fair to say they were
responsible for making a decision to go to war in the first place. However,
they are not responsible for all of the other choices made by other people
after his decision. So if someone decided to go to war and then kills someone
while at war because it’s what he/she had to do to survive then I wouldn’t say
his choice to go to war that was made many months or years prior makes him
responsible for death, because there were so many choices of people in between
his initial choice and the outcome such as the instructor telling him to kill
people if he had to, his friend leaving his side while at war so he extra fire
on him and had to respond. Basically what I’m saying is that there are so many
other choices and variables in the mix that make it impossible to peg the blame
of a circumstance on an action made a long time ago.
Sartre also mentions that we are responsible for everything
that happens in our life except for the fact that we are responsible for everything.
This is an empowering thing according to Sarte and I agree with him here. We
may not have been in control when deciding to exist but we are in complete
control of our existence, which I find to be very liberating. Therefore individual
selves are at the core of everything that matters because we determine just
about everything whether we realize it or not. We can find comfort in that how
our lives turn out I purely our own doing and thus we have the power to mold
our lives in whatever we want that the possibilities are endless.
Thoughts?
While I agree with the fact that there are innumerable factors surrounding the soldier's decision to kill someone in a war, I still think that the soldier in particular is responsible. If, as you say, going to war was truly his choice (and therefore his responsibility) since he considered the options, isn't firing a gun and killing someone also his choice for which he must take responsibility? Didn't he have the option to say, not pull the trigger, and let himself simply be captured or killed? Of course he did. If a soldier has the capability to weigh the option of reporting for duty after being drafted (technically an order, but as you say, there are other options), then he must also have the similar options (not shooting the gun).
ReplyDeleteChandler, you summed up what I planned to say. I think this post generally, and the soldier's seemingly determined fait, expose a strange relationship human beings often develop with their freedom. With regards to things like self-defense, or even the draft (which, thankfully, is not currently imposed), people tend to assume that you don't have a choice. In a very simple and direct way, this helps to put some psychological space in between the subject and whatever atrocious actions he or she commits. We need these sort of self-imposed lies to get through the work week, certainly, and in war, necessarily. But, like you said, the dude's free to shoot or be shot.
DeleteYou say "yet they choice to stay and fight after weighing their options and believing it to be the best option" this in and of itself makes it seem as though the soldier has no choice if the best option is to continue what he is doing. Much like the waiter continues to wait this is bad faith in that he is doing what is the best current option even though he does not like it so he is nto truly free much like this soldier.
ReplyDeleteI think that the soldier is definitely responsible for killing the person. He always has options (always has the choice to kill himself) or to run away or something like that.So because he had the other options he is responsible for the actions that he does. I'd like to see how Kant would argue with Sartre about war and what happens in it. When the soldier goes to war he is he doing his duty and if so would he still be responsible? So if Kant said that one must do their duty whatever their duty may be, but Sartre says that the person is responsible for the killing of the other soldier, how would that work out?
ReplyDeleteI feel as it relates to the example of killing in war, it is not the fact that he needed to survive nor the previous decision to be involved in the war in the first place, but rather the ex temporary action itself of killing. Facing danger as such may offer the illusion of a situation in which you are not responsible, but the actions that are negated in the act of killing defines the freedom. By killing he is choosing not to die, but he is also not choosing to die, or at the very least not choosing not to kill.
ReplyDelete