The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre would be opposed to the statement, "All individuals must follow a set moral standard if they want to do the morally right thing." For avoidance of doubt, Sartre would never agree with it. The idea that humans must follow a set moral standard stems from the concept that ethical decisions are a priori in nature. This concept means that every individual who adheres to a specific moral standard would arrive at the same regulations when faced with the same fact. Based on the arguments made by Sartre, the ethical decision-making process of every human does not work in an a priori system. Humans do not have a set standard upon which they base their moral reasoning and ethical decision-making. Instead of relying on set rules and regulations, humans are more spontaneous and make ethical decisions depending on the whims of the moment.
To illustrate the spontaneity of moral reasoning and ethical decision-making, Sartre uses the example of an artist making a painting. As Sartre argues, it is not possible to use any set form of analysis or system to determine the kind of painting an artist is going to make. The only way to tell what an artist will make with a level of accuracy is waiting for the artist to finish and then look at the work of art (p. 338). Before the product is finished, it is impossible to tell for a fact what the outcome will be. In the same way, a decision-maker becomes an artist when faced with a particular issue. The outcome of the decision-making process depends fully and only on the whims of the decision-maker. The individual who intends to make an ethical decision will decide which moral rules to adhere to, based on the intended decision. For example, if Christianity favors a certain decision, then the decision-maker will choose a Christian perspective.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To illustrate this argument, Sartre uses the example of a young man from Vichy France, who has to decide whether to stay with the mother or leave for England in order to join the Free French Forces. Sartre argues that the young man faced a dilemma due to two important considerations (P. 337). On the one hand, there was the young man’s mother who loved him and whose heart he would break if he left for her to go and fight. On the other hand, there was the need for revenge as the young man’s brother had died while fighting the Germans. The young man also knew that heading out to war would present some adventure.
Based on this dilemma, Sartre argues that the young man cannot base his argument on any set moral standard and strictly rely on that standard to make a determination. Instead, the young man will use, will choose the kind of argument that best supports the decision he wants to make. Different moral theories and concepts can support each of the two choices available to the young man. For example, if he decides to follow the Christian faith, he will have to ask a priest for advice (p. 338). However, there are priests who support collaboration with the Germans, priests who support non-involvement, and priests who support resistance. By choosing which priest to ask for advice, the young man will already have made his choice. Conversely, there is Kantian Ethics, which, as Sartre argues, states that all men should be treated as an end in themselves, not a means to an end (p. 37). However, Kantian theory can support either of the two decisions. For example, if he stays, he will be treating his mother as an end and his brother in arms as a means. Similarly, if he leaves for war, the roles are reversed making his mother then end. Whatever choice the young man makes will depend purely on the whims of the young man as any set moral standard can apply to every version of the decision.
