I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward”(Thoreau 387). He makes the distinction between subjects, those who surrender their consciences, and men, who heed their consciences and judge for themselves. Essentially, he states that our consciences are what define our manhood and that the individual must take it into their own hands instead of leaving it to an unjust government. He reinforces this point by likening those who submit without regard for their own consciences to “movable forts or magazines”. He further elaborates by saying, “ The only obligation, which I have the right to assume is to do at anytime what I think is right”(Thoreau 387).
In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory. When Sartre says, “We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean to say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32), he is speaking of man’s autonomous life; which is human independence and freedom to will one’s actions. Because God, according to Sartre, did not create man we are self-creating.
The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it. By inserting nothingness, he means that we can turn the facticity into "nothing," and then give it a meaning all of our own making in order to make the most out of our situation and optimize our goals.
The fact is that man lives by only one rule: to preserve the right to preserve. Man lives to kill or be killed. Every man acts as a singular body that has the duty to preserve his own successful end means. Freedom is an obligation to preserve and defend yo... ... middle of paper ... ... These ideas Hobbes presents explain why his account of human nature is deeply pessimistic of man.
(188) Therefore the accepted rules of conduct to follow, principles of ethics and our interpretation of morality would not exist. The principals of Good & Evil would be subjective, left to the interpretation of each person. According to Hobbes the catalyst for the process of an absolute power would not be because it is right & just to keep war at bay, but because man has an intrinsic desire to live. Man fueled by his own self interests and capable of reason will see an absolute power, (as every man is naturally equal), as the only way to preserve himself. For it is the “general rule of reason, that every man ought to endeavour peace” (190) It is in man’s self-interest to follow the laws of nature and to willingly give up all of his rights in order to secure his or her safety & preserve his or hers way of life, as long as all other’s do the same.
For the existentialist, hope is a passion that gets him nowhere. He must face life in his abandoned state, with courage and self-affirmation. Sartre's existentialism is unique in its individualistic outlook, its detachment, its lack of reliance of an outer code to manage behavior, and its emphasis on man's self-reliance. Existentialism, as exemplified in the work of Sartre, deals with fundamental issues of life and how he finds mans' existence within the choices and actions that define him. Since Sartre believes that there is no transcendent this theory causes man to be alone.
According to Kant, by acting out of moral duty we as humans fulfill the moral law to which we act out of respect for it. The moral law, which is also known as the categorical imperative, is Kant’s notion that man acts based on a, “universal maxim” without conditions (Groundwork pg.392). Kant’s notion of a categorical imperative is associated with objective ends. In other words, it declares what is right, not for individuals, but for mankind as a whole. Humanity, which comes from Kant’s notion of the categorical imperative, is understood, “as an end, never as a means” (Holtman pg.105).
he attempt to appeal to what alone would attract their own self-interest. Thus, the argument itself is utilitarian in nature and character that it will be to every man’s interest in the future to follow these rules. Because if the rules are followed and fulfilled, he will get the peace and security which he desires that the security which will relieve his fear and the peace which will enable him to satisfy his various desires. This argument, in fact, is unsatisfactory because Hobbes recognizes the breakdown and he also knows no other consideration which would lead men to be obedient and amenable to social discipline that he has to appeal, over and above utilitarian in discipline, the force as the factor which will be introduce and maintain order. SOVEREIGNTY Since society depends on mutual trust, Hobbes’s theory of Sovereignty explained how this is reasonably possible.
So if I understand this correctly this means that you need to have existence in order to have essence, so there is no predetermined 'true' thing, it has to already exist in order to become what it is. Therefore man is fully in charge of creating himself as a person, and creating his own future. Subjectivity is also important to Existentialism, and by subjectivity Sartre means that while choosing his own self, man also chooses all man. And he states this idea in this citation "to choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all."
Therefore Hobbes arrives at the first fundamental law of nature: “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtain... ... middle of paper ... ...iety, both agree that their contemporary world is not a world of the human animal. Changes have occurred not only in the way humans are ordered, but in humans themselves as well. Their theories differ in their beliefs about these changes. Hobbes is able to recognize the current state of man as having transcended its most basic nature. Rousseau agrees with Hobbes but assumes even more of man.