And on a related note, THIS:
Friday, November 2, 2012
choosing not to have a choice
I think it is really interesting that Sartre discusses the mode of submitting one's will when one "doesn't have a choice" as still making a conscious choice not to choose a preferable alternative. It is true, of course, that there are usually certain factors at play that greatly influence our choices to submit/"not to choose". For example, as a student I am motivated by my fear of failure to show up regularly to classes and to complete all of my work in a timely fashion. Likewise is the case for employees who choose to go to work because they do not wish to be fired. We may feel as though we do not have a choice, but we do. If I really don't want to go to my classes on Monday I am capable of choosing not to go. I realize however that there are negative consequences of choosing not to go, and am therefore motivated by my apprehension of these consequences to avoid having to face them. In this case I am choosing something that is not preferable to me, and which one may argue I am being coerced to choose - but I still making a choice. To me, this choosing to cooperate when we "don't have a choice" is simply a means to achieving stability in our lives without negative repercussions. I believe it is human nature to act (to quote Machiavelli) as though the end justifies the means. I know that we all have our individual moral/self-defined standards about us, but in consideration of situations that might prompt us to act in a certain way to avoid conflict or to get what we want, I posit that our basic human natures will compel us to embody this "end justifies the means" idea. Is this the case of human nature? Is this right? Is this a compromise of identity?
And on a related note, THIS:
And on a related note, THIS:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You posit that our " basic human natures" will compel us to embody an ideal of ends justifying means, but on this argument-pivotal point I mean say that this seems in some ways contrary to Sartre's words, as I interpret them- It seems that as humans we have the choice to deny human nature, if we want and are able to understand our choices. Natural factors and sociological factors seem to be causes of our thinking we have limited freedom, but they also can be overcome.
ReplyDeleteI think that, while, yes, humans' actions are based on pro-con value judgments that we make on such a regular basis that they are almost subconscious, Sartre would say that humanity's nature is that we have the ability to define our own nature. While this means that on an individual level one could choose to define oneself by this philosophy, one could also choose an entirely different self-identity.
ReplyDeleteI think that, while, yes, humans' actions are based on pro-con value judgments that we make on such a regular basis that they are almost subconscious, Sartre would say that humanity's nature is that we have the ability to define our own nature. While this means that on an individual level one could choose to define oneself by this philosophy, one could also choose an entirely different self-identity.
ReplyDeleteWhen you put your proposition in Machiavellian terms, I feel like it's almost bad for us to make choices that we don't want to make or to choose to not have a choice. It's not wrong for us to make a choice that, when made/carried out, avoids negative consequences. But, we simply must realize that by choosing to not have a choice we are simply choosing to not do what many others either wouldn't do or to do what everyone expects us to do, i.e. go to class, get a job, etc.
ReplyDeleteDo we act in an "end justifies the means" fashion? Not necessarily. Do we indeed strive each day to avoid negative events in our lives? Absolutely. I agree that while we always have the choice to not go to class, most won't choose that option due to the negative implications (mental stress, effects on our future, etc.) Does this make us a slave to best possible scenarios and the choices that follow in our lives? Very possibly. In the extreme example that Marx gives us, he explains that the worker is slave to the bourgeoisie. In turn, the worker is slave to the means to survive, however dismal that means may be. He still chooses it. The simple truth is that we seek what grants us the greatest possible pleasure, and avoid things which cause us suffering of any kind.
ReplyDelete