Existentialism & Ethics – Notes on Chapter 9 of "Philosophy in the Modern World"

According to Neitzsche, God is dead. As a result, there is no inherent moral system and therefore humanity is free to choose its own ethics.

Heidegger, a phenomenologist, says the true state of being is “Dasein” which is to be absorbed in life and the world in a positive way and to not be defined by you “facticity” (the definitions placed on you by society).

In existentialism, you are free to choose how you live and what you do but to be happy and dasein you should live an “authentic” life. As there is no inherent meaning in life, it just is, you should do what makes you happy. Also, if life is pointless and there is no morality, existentialists would say that you are free to try change society ‘for the better’ and by any means, including violence if you are in the same school of thinking as Franz Fanon.

Of course, existentialism is not the only potential form of ethics for the world.

Utilitarianism’s major idea is that we should aim to have “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” which Bentham linked to pleasure. For this reason, quantifying pain and pleasure is important.

In terms of ethics, here are two real types of utilitarian – absolutists and consequentialists. Absolutists consider some actions to be intrinsically wrong & should never be done, irrespective of their consequences whilst consequentialists believe the morality of actions should be judged solely on their consequences and that no act has special circumstances. As an example, if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, absolutists would tell you not to as murder is wrong, despite the fact it would save countless lives whilst consequentialists would be more than happy to do it as the action has such a positive impact.

Both Bentham and Mill were consequentialists. Whilst there are many criticisms of utilitarianism as a moral guide, such as the fact it can allow people to act in a way that would normally be outrageous by deciding there are special circumstances, Mill thought the real issue was that it can be so blinded by morality that it can overlook justice. Of course, another issue is that one person’s happiness can be sacrificed to increase the overall total happiness in a community. He also thought that certain types of activities that create utility have a higher value than others, i.e. going to the opera has a greater value than eating a doughnut or even watching a musical.

To Schopenhauer, the world is an illusion & true reality is the universal will. Because of this, his idea of morality is that is it the training of character. As everything in nature is determined by necessity, so too are a person’s nature and actions. According to this idea, given the right data we could predict and map a person’s future actions. Our will cannot be changed, nor can it be satisfied; Schopenhauer says we should renounce our self. Once we do this, we become ‘in touch’ with the rest of humanity and can therefore act morally and for the good of everyone.

Keirkegaard’s idea of moral ascent is similar to Schopenhauer in that both are pessimistic in their view of human nature and that both lead to renunciation. However, Keirkegaard sees renunciation as the first step on a spiritual journey that aims to give each person their own personality as a creature of God.

Nietzsche takes the opposite view to Keirkegaard. He believes we must undo the transvaluation from master-morality and restore the concept of higher classes being better and the order of “good=noble=beautiful=happy=loved by the gods” that was reversed with the uprising of slaves and the birth of Christianity. This overturning of the structure of society will help lead to a race that transcends the traditional master-slave relationships seen in life, the Übermensch.