Sartre's Troubling "Ethical Theory"

I have a problem with Sartre. I've been thinking about it for a while now, but we really got to the heart of it today with Emmanuel's question.

Sarte's ethical theory doesn't help us make ethical decisions (and that seems, to me at least, to be the entire purpose of ethical theory).

Now, i realize that Sartre is aware of this fact. I understand that he is concerned with the question "what kind of existence is this" rather than "which actions are morally permissible". But I still think this is a mistake on his part.

Despite their flaws, other ethical theories we have studied have at least provided a road map for moral actions. Kant's Categorical Imperative offers a sound method for discerning what is morally permissible and morally impermissible. Similarly, although in a very different manner, J.S. Mill gives a method for determining the appropriateness of actions.

Sartre, on the other hand, doesn't give us this clear rubric for gauging moral actions. He doesn't offer an a priori law of morality or a calculation to enhance the happiness of the populous (which equates to morality). Instead, he emphasizes freedom and responsibility...

Don't get me wrong, those are admirable. His insistence that "you cannot choose to not choose" is insightful. But we should confuse insight with an acceptable moral theory.

For instance, if someone behaves in a manner that is morally impermissible by a Kantean standard (such as, oh let's say...genocide), Sartre wouldn't assign a value judgment to that. He would say that the agent is responsible for his actions, but would stop short of "immoral". That's problematic for me.

This ethical theory, if we can really call it that, doesn't help guide conduct. It doesn't tell us how to act. it doesn't achieve (or even attempt to achieve) a fundamental goal of ethical theory. Essentially, it declares virtually every person as radically free and entirely responsible.

To me, that just isn't enough for an ethical theory.

Sartre's theory cannot be, by itself, enough to determine the morality of actions. Since i think we can generally agree that that is an essential element of ethical theories, it would require some sort of supplemental theory to accomplish that goal. It needs an ethical law, a calculation, something to clean up the pieces and fill in the gaps.

And, in my humble opinion, that makes Sartre's theory inferior

(As a side note: In class, Dr. J mentioned that once we ask ourselves "are we responsible for children starving in Sudan", we become responsible. We are aware of the fact that children are starving and we have the opportunity to respond. This notion is also troubling to me. It suggests that we avoid responsibility through ignorance. If we are unaware or ignorant of these things, we are absolved- at least in part- of moral responsibility. I don't mean to open a new can of worms, this is just an aside)