Question

What does Sartre mean by saying that we are “condemned to be free”? What does this imply about the nature of ethics and ethical decision making?

Answer 1

According to Sartre, man is free to make his own choices, but is "condemned" to be free, because we did not create ourselves. Even though people are put on Earth without their consent, we must choose and act freely from every situation we are in. Everything we do is a result of being free because we have choice. The only choice we do not have is that of having choices. Not only are we condemned to be free because we did not choose to exist, but we are also condemned to be free because we are the only thing that exists that has to be responsible for all of our actions. However, how do we know that God doesn't have everything determined for us and just leads us to believe that we are free? The truth is that we don't know, and won't until we leave this earth. It is now up to us to decide if our freedom is to be valued, and to choose the way we want to use our freedom.

It seems like Sartre see this freedom as a curse. The use of the phrase "condemned to be free" sounds like Sartre see's this freedom as an inconvenience rather than a blessing. Since Sartre doesn't believe in God, he is seen as alone in the world with no one to depend on but himself. According to Sartre, God does not exist, and therefore cannot limit what we do or how we act. A person cannot make excuses for their actions, because there is no God to respond to, and he has chosen them on his own. We are condemned to face life and the responsibility that comes with it. Even if Sartre believed in a God, it still wouldn't help what he is trying to express. If God existed then some people would just want to let God make their decisions for them, which gives people an excuse for their actions, and takes away all sense of freedom. Or people would have to decide if they wanted to follow God's rules in the first place, and would then have to be responsible for this decision.

However, there are consequences for this side of the argument as well. If God does not exist, everything is permitted because there is no God to stop us from doing whatever we want, whenever we wanted. Man would not have to be accountable for their actions since there is no God to judge them. Without values or morals predefined in human nature, there is also no determinism when it comes to how we act in each situation. Sartre says that being human means taking responsibility for the choices that you make. But if there is no God, then what should we make of ourselves? Who are we to decide what is moral and immoral? How can we possibly choose to do good when there are no predefined standard that tells us what is good and what is evil? Sartre says it is dependent upon us to decide the goodness of our choices. Our humanity is choosing actions that have value to us, and those choices continue to define us. When we think about a decision we have to make, Sartre says that we really have already made up the decision of what we are going to do, and if we choose not to choose, that is a choice as well. Despite of the burden of freedom, man must take advantage of his condemned freedom, because giving up our freedom would be giving up our humanness as well. Surely it is better to be "condemned to be free", than "condemned to be God's puppet".