Rejection of Universal Truth in Existentialism

conorh91

One concept in existentialist thought that I find confusing is the idea that each of us, in our choices, determine what is best for mankind.

At the root of existentialism there is an admission that the content of decisions (as opposed to the process by which that decision is reached) cannot be judged, and that different decisions will be reached by different people, whilst still maintaining coherence.

In light of this, isn't it logical that I may consciously arrive at a decision to commit some terrible act, which I sincerely hope nobody else commits, without losing any coherence or acting in bad faith?

In other words, isn't it reasonable for me to have different standards for myself than for everyone else, in light of the fact that it would be wrong for them to commit this awful act, but I am free to hold myself to more flexible standards, for whatever reason?

Sometimes I feel like the concept of universality seems a little strained, even like an ex-post attempt to prevent existentialism descending into anarchy.

Black Swan

conorh91 wrote: »

One concept in existentialist thought that I find confusing is the idea that each of us, in our choices, determine what is best for mankind.

Kierkegaard suggests that the single individual and associated subjectivity may approach the existential norm of authenticity. Although the individual may consider what is suggested by the natural sciences, as well as standards of moral reason, they do not by themselves or in combination achieve authenticity for the individual; i.e., the individual is much more than objective nature and ethics standards in Kierkegaard's version of singularity. Furthermore, in terms of accepting what is held in common, Kierkegaard warns that the "crowd is untruth" all too often, regardless of the source, and that the individual should proceed with caution in defining his reality.

Although not generally considered an existentialist, the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith suggests that each individual pursuing his/her own self interest in a capitalistic system will result in the best for all (Personally, I struggle accepting the "invisible hand" concept).

Joe1919

I agree that there are problems in existentialism (e.g. The Authentic Tyrant problem) and most of these problems come about because of their unwillingness to appeal to 'human nature'.

Sartre ( in Existentialism Is a Humanism) rejects any idea of a universal human nature but he does accept 'a human universality of condition.' My view is that this 'human universality of condition' leads to humans behaving (generally universally) in certain ways.

For example, because the human at birth is a very defenseless and dependent creature (a human universality of condition), it is necessary for successful parents to love and take care of their offspring, as part of their nature. etc. etc.

As already mentioned, there is a large element of enlightened self interest ( and even, perhaps, a collective or social form of enlightened self interest at work.)

My view, then, is that we can still have some objectivity in ethics, because of our shared 'human universality of condition'.

Furthermore, although it is impossible to find in each and every man a universal essence that can be called human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality of condition. It is not by chance that the thinkers of today are so much more ready to speak of the condition than of the nature of man. By his condition they understand, with more or less clarity, all the limitations which a priori define man’s fundamental situation in the universe. His historical situations are variable: man may be born a slave in a pagan society or may be a feudal baron, or a proletarian. But what never vary are the necessities of being in the world, of having to labor and to die there. These limitations are neither subjective nor objective, or rather there is both a subjective and an objective aspect of them.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm