The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.
You know, in a universe that has unfolded over billions of years resulting in, among other things, the evolution of biological life on planet Earth culminating [thus far] in a species – us – that may or may not have the capacity to intertwine these important components of the “human condition” of our own volition.
And, given free will, moral freedom can be explored in any number of particular, existential contexts. But ontological freedom? What on Earth is that? Has anyone even come close to pinning it down other than in a world of words?
As I understand this, the ontological component then revolves around the assumption that we do have free will. We cannot not choose a point of view regarding moral conflicts because even if we choose not to “get involved” that in and of itself is a choice.
Something along the lines of the Objectivist band Rush:
“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose Freewill”
Through human interactions. Such that, as Sartre noted, “hell is other people”. Why? Because they do refuse to accept our own moral freedom…and, instead, objectify us. Everything comes back around to their own moral and political prejudices seen instead as the objective truth “in their head”. I merely suggest that to the extent we become like them and insist others are obligated to share our own values, we objectify ourselves as well.