I want to begin by examining a passage from Sarte's essay "Existentialism is a Humanism".
This passage troubled me. I was mostly bothered by Sarte's claim that there cannot be any a priori good without an "infinite and perfect consciousness to conceive of it". I don't see why a priori goods cannot exist in the absence of a deity. When we read Kant, for example, it seemed that he made a good case for a priori ethical principles without deriving them directly from a religion. He reasoned out his principles rather than looking for somewhere where it is "written that the good exists".
Then, entirely by accident, I stumbled across something relevant to these ideas in a Google Books preview. In case you are interested, here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=OsGuZjYzXdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=open+questions&hl=en&ei=wVO0TreTHJPJsQL42pzzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
This book contains an interview with Yale philosophy professor Shelly Kagan. The interviewer asks him this: "Existentialist atheism—and here I'm referring to Sarte and Camus—is very much associated with this idea that life is absurd and meaningless since we're going to die. If one is an atheist, how can we escape this feeling of absurdity and meaninglessness?"
Here is an excerpt of Kagan's response:
So, what do you guys think about all of this? Do you agree with Sarte that a priori good cannot exist without a deity? Do you agree with Dostoyevsky that "If God does not exist, everything is permissible"? Or do you, like Kagan, dispute these claims?
Existentialists, on the other hand, find it extremely disturbing that God no longer exists, for along with his disappearance goes the possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There could no longer be any a priori good, since there would be no infinite and perfect consciousness to conceive of it. Nowhere is it written that good exists, that we must be honest or must not lie, since we are on a plane shared only by men. Dostoyevsky once wrote: "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." This is the starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and man is consequently abandoned, for he cannot find anything to rely on—neither within nor without. First, he finds there are no excuses. For if it is true that existence precedes essence, we can never explain our actions by reference to a given and immutable human nature. (28-29)
This passage troubled me. I was mostly bothered by Sarte's claim that there cannot be any a priori good without an "infinite and perfect consciousness to conceive of it". I don't see why a priori goods cannot exist in the absence of a deity. When we read Kant, for example, it seemed that he made a good case for a priori ethical principles without deriving them directly from a religion. He reasoned out his principles rather than looking for somewhere where it is "written that the good exists".
Then, entirely by accident, I stumbled across something relevant to these ideas in a Google Books preview. In case you are interested, here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=OsGuZjYzXdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=open+questions&hl=en&ei=wVO0TreTHJPJsQL42pzzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
This book contains an interview with Yale philosophy professor Shelly Kagan. The interviewer asks him this: "Existentialist atheism—and here I'm referring to Sarte and Camus—is very much associated with this idea that life is absurd and meaningless since we're going to die. If one is an atheist, how can we escape this feeling of absurdity and meaninglessness?"
Here is an excerpt of Kagan's response:
Now, I myself don't believe in an afterlife, I don't believe in a supernatural being that has created the universe. So, if I granted the assumption that unless there's a god of that sort, unless there's an afterlife, then nothing has any meaning, then I would have to agree with some of the existentialists—and some of the nihilists—that life has no meaning. But I think it's the assumption itself that needs to be challenged. I don't see any particular reason to agree that, unless something lasts forever—let's say, there's an afterlife—then it's not really valuable. (158)
So, what do you guys think about all of this? Do you agree with Sarte that a priori good cannot exist without a deity? Do you agree with Dostoyevsky that "If God does not exist, everything is permissible"? Or do you, like Kagan, dispute these claims?
Although I am not certain how religious I truly am, I do believe in God. I also agree with Sartre's claim that a priori good cannot exist without a deity. The notion that ideas and beliefs can exist independent of any sort of real-world experience implies that it is instinctual. It seems as though our obligation to help each other is an example of this. As social beings, we aim to create relationships out of necessity to our well being. We understand that caring for each other is something that makes us happy. But because we aim to make ties with people out of our own necessity, it seems less like a preconceived notion of living harmoniously together, and more of a biological instinct that we act upon. Therefore, I believe there must be something that creates a priori good. The definition of a priori good relies on the existence of a God. Otherwise, it is just a type of good that is biologically inherent, making those a priori values instincts that humans have evolved to have versus a good that simply exists within us.
ReplyDeleteMills,
ReplyDeleteAnother great post! I do agree with Dostoyevsky that "without God, all things are permissible," but in the sense that humans are left to create their own moral codes - not in the sense that morality does not exist.
Perhaps Sartre would disagree with me on this, but I feel that when Sartre says that there can be no a prior good, he means that no a priori good is given to us. Kant's a priori morality is not given to him so much as it is derived by him. In this way, even Kant's metaphysics of morals can be seen as somewhat of an existentialist endeavor - although Kant's belief that reason is essential to humans makes this classification problematic. Ultimately, I think that Sartre (and myself) would argue that even Kant's morality is not a priori, despite what Kant thought, but that argument is for another time.
Very Good post Mills.
ReplyDeleteI found both Colin's view and Jade's view to be very interesting. I was wondering Jade, when stating the following "We understand that caring for each other is something that makes us happy" is that really true? do we really understand that or are we trained to believe that?
In addition the statement: "we make ties with people out of our own necessity," why must this be an attribute that god gives us? could it not be that as one of many evolving animals, we learned that communities are necessary for our survival, and because communities involve the self and others, we must have a set rules so that we may all live peacefully. Is a connection to God really necessary in this case? Must a Great Being have set up those rules (values) already for us to use them? As rational beings we coud not rationalize that if we want to live peacefully with someone else because they have a certain skill that we do not, then we must not kill that him?
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
ReplyDeleteColin, I liked your explanation of what Sarte means by "no a priori good", and I agree with you that humans should reason out their own moral codes.
On the point that Jade and Nellie are discussing, I still don't see how the existence/nonexistence of a god would affect the existence of a priori good, though I do see how other factors might affect it. I suppose someone could say that even the most rigorous effort to work out a priori knowledge will rely on experience to some extent, and therefore it is not a priori. But, if we maybe take a less strict definition, it seems to me that people can work out ethical goods through reason. I have to agree with the quote by Kagan in my post that things don't have to have eternal significance to be ethically good or valuable. Whether or not the ethical principles we reason out come from a higher being is an open question, but I don't think answering "no" to that question would invalidate those ethical principles.
Yeah i'll echo Colin here in his agreement with Dostoevsky. The absence of God allows for the formation of ethical principles (that freedom provides the ability to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable).
ReplyDeleteIn other words, when we are in control of forming our own ethical principles and codes, we obtain the power to do anything. That's quite a responsibility.
As for Sartre's claim, I think that you're right to question how he associates "a priori" with the existence of a diety. That being said, i think we have to be careful in how we interpret that exactly. His claim is a general one, not a statement about the necessity of a Judeo-Christian God. I think it's important to keep that in mind.
Great post, btw.