back to the beginning: morality

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Okay, but my reaction to this revolves around those who think they do understand and share Darwin’s sense of morality…and are willing to explore that with me here in regard to conflicting value judgments that are well known around the globe.

How are “social instincts” applicable to the abortion wars, or to the red state/blue state conflagrations? Or to the extremely contentious capitalism vs. socialism political and economic agendas?

And then when I react here with “we’ll need a context of course”, some act as though I don’t really get philosophy at all.

As though philosophers/ethicists, in exploring the “innate moral sense”, are not [like all the rest of us] all over the board with respect to their own moral and political value judgments. Yes, it appears we come into the world with a biological propensity to make distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. But how on earth would that be manifested if a child really was raised by wolves or kept completely isolated from others? History, culture and experiences are all profoundly embedded in the end results here.

Instead, the “deep code” here is not all that far removed from we describe as “instinct” in all other animals.

Thus:

In other words, “in general”. But: how exactly would we go about exploring this relationship existentially…in regard to that “particular context”? How are the points I make regarding “dasein”, “conflicting goods” and “political economy” not also pertinent in regard to the reactions of specific individuals out in a particular world viewing it in a particular way?

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

And all of this unfolds given ever evolving changes in human interactions as a result of, among other things, scientific advances, technological changes, the stuff Marx spoke of in regard to the “dialectical material” evolution in political economy. Verbal communication, body language, empathy, a grasp of social mores, customs and norms, negotiating good relationships with others, etc., ten thousand years ago is not likely to overlap with those things today. Not to mention the components that I propose in my own signature threads here.

Yes, but clearly how this all plays out over the years and decades, will depend in large part on the actual “situation” that any individuals find themselves in. Thus “private thinking” is likely to pop up over and again. In this thread for example. Who is to say which point of view is the most “competent”?

Again, are we to imagine that how these components played out historically in communities in which “we” took precedence over “me” are not going to change [even dramatically] in a modern world in which as a result of the ascendency of capitalism “me” is often likely to be the starting point instead for many.

And that those who champion socialism are just intent on bringing it all back around more to “we” instead.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Still, if this isn’t argument that revolves around not knowing when, morally, genes give way to memes and then back again, what else is it?

It’s like arguing about when sheer futility gives way to sheer stupidity among those who insist that they actually do grasp when and where and how and why genes and memes are intertwined. If only in every possible human interaction. Yes, regarding all of this philosophers can put in their two cents. But take their own intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds and focus in on an actual discussion and debate relating to race and gender and sexuality and every other set of circumstances where value judgments come into conflict. Won’t they pop up all along the political spectrum…just like all the rest of us?

There “natural” ethics can become anything but elegant as those on all sides scream at and curse each other.

The “moral sense” in the best of all possible world? The “moral sense” in which those who choose to use and abuse and slaughter animals for profit come to “see the light” and stop doing so because objectively it’s the “right thing to do”?

And that this is somehow to be understood as also the “natural” thing to do given a true understanding of the evolution of biological life on planet earth? Of course that also includes the part where nature has left all the other animals on earth engaging in the daily spectacle of “kill or be killed”. Literally survival of the fittest. All genes, no memes. Which is what the Satyrean ubermen among us want to insist is also the case for the human species. Memes or not.

Now all we need is a context, right?

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

It’s not for nothing, in my view, that any discussion of morality/ethics must begin with God.

Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, if there did in fact exist an omniscient and omnipotent entity then how could the components of my own moral philosophy not be subsumed in Him? Anymore than the moral philosophies of everyone else.

Indeed, given an omniscient God, how could any of our moral narratives actually be derived from free will? Everything and anything existing could only be an inherent, necessary manifestation of God.

Wisdom? Truth? Improvement of the soul? How I would love to have spent a few hours – days? – with him [and Plato] discussing those things. Out in a particular context for example. Moral and political idealism only make sense to me given the existence of one or another rendition of an omniscient and omnipotent God. And, in their own way, didn’t they mange to define and to deduce one into existence.

After Another Woman, this is my favorite film of his.* And precisely because it explores the moral parameters of human interactions given a God or a No God world. And aside from whether living an ethical life is a good thing in and of itself, in the absence of God which of us as mere mortals get to say what that actually consists of when push comes to shove and particular behaviors in particular sets of circumstances are either rewarded or punished.

• ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … s#p2398418

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

And I go on and on about this. Why? Because the only thing that is possibly more disturbing than the human suffering caused by dueling objectivist – Hitler/Stalin – is the suffering caused by the “show me the money” moral nihilists that own and operate the global economy. And the sociopaths who will use and abuse others based solely on the assumption that the center of the universe morally revolves around their own self-interests.

That’s not the point from my perspective. For the egotists, the narcissists, the sociopaths etc., the world is not divided up between those who are virtuous and those who are not. It is divided up between what they want and desire [for whatever reason] and anyone who stands in the way of them getting it. For them virtue revolves only around having or not having options. And not getting caught when those who do deem their behaviors immoral come after them.

And then of course there are those like John Galt. The supreme egoist. But cut more in the mold of Nietzsche’s Uberman. Ego determines the course of his action. But it is an ego attached to “right makes might”. It is an ego attached to philosophical principles that sets him apart from mere might makes right thuggery.

Selfishness is not problem, only the source from which it is derived.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Here though “good” is just a word that we invented because, for all practical purposes, in any given community, certain behaviors are going to be either rewarded or punished. And clearly to the extent that you are rewarded [in whatever manner] for doing this instead of that that is a good thing and not a bad thing.

It’s just that going back to the pre-Socratics, the Greeks are thought to have come up with a new way of thinking about and then exploring this. Let’s call it philosophy. Here in the “West” for example.

Yet here we are, thousands of years later, and, just like the Greeks, still squabbling ferociously over which behaviors really are the good ones and not the bad ones.

Why? Well, cue the arguments I make in my signature threads here. Or provide us with arguments of your own.

Now, imagine a “human condition” where the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe thought like Glaucon. So, of course one or another rendition of God or political ideology or deontology or true “natural” behaviors had to be invented. Social interactions had evolved from the brute facticity embodied in might makes right, had gone through any number of right makes right historical creations, and, with the advent of capitalism, had “settled” on one or another variant of democracy and the rule of law.

But: the right makes might objectivist are always around to wrench that back. We’ve got any number of them right here. Most being reactionaries. Some fancying themselves as one of Nietzsche’s Ubermen. A few practically Nazis.

And then the moral nihilists who figure that “show me the money” is as good as it gets in their own best of possible worlds.

Now, in Crimes and Misdemeanors, we know the trajectory that Judah Rosenthal chose. Or, rather, given a new experience revolving around a new relationship… stumbled into?

Existentially as it were.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

This is another example of the hypothetical “what would you do?” Given one or another “situation”. Everyone has their own frame of mind, many of them in conflict. Then the philosophers among us shift the discussion to that which all virtuous men and women ought to do. To that which all rational men and women are obligated to do.

Then I note my own arguments which suggest that such discussions are ultimately futile in a No God world. That what actual flesh and blood human beings end up choosing to do has less to do with philosophy and more to do with the complex intertwining of personal experiences, relationships and a particular sequence of knowledge, information and ideas that no two people are likely to ever share in common.

And then the sociopaths among us who scoff at such intellectual/hypothetical arguments altogether and insist that right and wrong revolve solely around whatever gets them that which satisfies and fulfills their wants and needs. For example, these folks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavel … psychology

Exception noted. But what never changes is that the objectivists among us take exception to every argument that refuses to accept their own frame of mind as the starting point. And then the sociopaths who are always ready, willing and able to take advantage of those who live their principled lives like an open book.

As for pinning down Goodness itself, Socrates left that part to Plato. Plato in and out of the cave, Plato inventing a “world of words” Republic owned and operated by the philosopher-kings.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

For me of course any attempt to demonstrate that there is in fact “the reality of goodness rather than its mere appearance”, comes down to a demonstration that an omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist. Otherwise, mere mortals contend with “good and evil” given the manner in which I encompass that in my signature threads.

So, Google “socrates and god’s existence” and you get this: google.com/search?source=hp … ent=psy-ab

Google “plato and god’s existence” and you get this: google.com/search?source=hp … HIQ4dUDCA0

You tell me.

If either or both of them believed in the modern equivalent of a God/the God/my God, then in the absence of definitive evidence that He does exist, I would bring their arguments here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929

As for the Sophists, how would they be differentiated from what today we would call sociopaths? Any argument that allows you to sustain that which is perceived to be in your own best interest is the right argument. And the sociopaths [and moral nihilists] have, in my view, always posed the biggest obstacle to the objectivists and the deontologists among us.

Here of course we encounter a frame of mind that is in the general vicinity of Satyr and his ilk. Memes may seem persuasive but, in the end, it all comes down to genes. Your behaviors are either more in sync with Nature or with whatever “social constructs” happen to be in vogue when you’re around.

Ah, but how do we pin down with any degree of certainty what Mother Nature intends for us? Here, the distinction is between “might makes right” and “right makes might”. Between those who read and understand Nietzsche and those who don’t. In other words, for the Übermensch among us, their own assessment of nature revolves around their vastly superior intellect. In regard to, among other things, race and gender and sexual preference, they, as “serious philosophers”, concoct these dense thickets of intellectual contraptions to explain all of that to us.

Here, for example: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Still, Judah’s predicament only plays out given this particular set of circumstances. And construed only from the different points of view that Allen examines. And most of us will still be more intent on deciding whether or not he did the right thing or the wrong thing.

Few will come to the conclusion that I do: that these predicaments are themselves rooted in the existential parameters of profoundly problematic “subjects” going about the business of creating a reality from all of the countless variables that come to make up their own unique lives. The part I embed in dasein.

And Plato’s dialogues are merely part and parcel of the “methodology” those who embrace “serious philosophy” espouse so as to convince themselves that it actually can be determined “whether or not Socrates is correct”.

To me, this is only even possible in a God world. Sans God, mere mortals interact given the assumptions I make in my signature threads.

So, in the film, we have this particular set of circumstances:

So, what would you do? And, in fact, this sort of thing happens often enough that many of the episodes featured on programs like Dateline, 48 Hours and 20/20 [here in America] revolve precisely around murders that have taken place in order sustain one or another clandestine relationship. Or to keep the “the other woman” from spilling the beans. Even “the other man” from time to time. Only on these episodes you don’t have characters like Ben and Jack delving into and deconstructing the unfolding drama from philosophical or religious or sociopathic perspectives on the age-old battle between good and evil.

Instead, there are only saintly victims and the evil perpetrators. And determining whether or not the evil get caught. Keith Morrison is always there to put the right words into the mouths of all the characters and [usually] the “denouement” is exactly as scripted.

And certainly with no assessments like mine here.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

So, basically, he is confronted with the frame of mind that revolves around a belief that there is in fact an objective morality available to human beings. Ben happens to be a Rabbi, but it could be anyone convinced that there is a way to differentiate good from evil. God or No God. Theistic or Humanistic.

Whereas Jack embodies the frame of mind that is embedded in the sociopath. If you want something done [for whatever selfish reason], you do it. Or you pay someone else to do it. Either way, “morality” comes to revolve solely around not getting caught. If you can get away with that which Ben would call “evil”, then that’s a good thing. For you. If not for Dolores.

Thus…

And, as I have noted before, this always strikes me as the grimmest reflection of moral nihilism. At least with the conflicting moral objectivists there is always the possibility of reasoning them over to your own point of view about right and wrong behavior. With the sociopaths there is almost no possibility of that. Everything comes down to the brute facticity of power itself. You want something? Okay, figure out a way to get it. And if it results in using and abusing others, just don’t get apprehended and punished for it.

Bad faith? You can almost hear Jack snorting his reaction. In fact, his true feelings come out when it appears as though Judah’s conscience is nudging him in the direction of turning himself [and Jack?] in. Then Jack basically reminds him of what the consequences of that might be.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

And that’s where these things often end up: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And that means a frame of mind relating to God and religion. If you are able to think yourself into rejecting them, then any possible guilt you might feel comes to revolve more around the consequences of getting caught. Your eternal soul isn’t part of the unfolding drama, but if you are caught how to explain what you did to those who know and love you. Not to mention those who knew and loved the person you hired someone to gun down.

And even the most committed atheist is likely to acknowledge that when push comes to shove there is no way in which to be absolutely certain that a God, the God does not exist. But here this can all only unfold from the perspective of dasein. Some things you may be able to communicate to others, but any number of things can easily remain beyond a divide rooted in lives lived in very, very different ways.

Here morality clearly revolves around one’s capacity to ground it in one or another objectivist font. It can be either God and religion or atheism and a Marxist-Leninist political ideology.

On the other hand, murdering Delores would not be condoned by either frame of mind. Instead, Judah must be reconfigured into Woody Allen’s own rendition of a sociopath. Though a cultured, intelligent and sophisticated sociopath. Like, say, Hannibal Lector. From this amoral perspective, there is no ethical foundation upon which mere mortals can anchor their behaviors. There is only what “here and now” you have come to believe furthers your own best interests. And then finding an option to bring it to fruition.

And then not getting caught.

Can there then possibly be a grimmer, more cynical way in which to construe the “human condition”?

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Clearly, if the Jewish God does in fact exist, having set into motion a series of events that resulted in Delores being murdered doesn’t bode well for Judah’s soul. On the other hand, from the perspective of any number of Humanist ideologies, murder is surely the secular equivalent of a mortal sin. His soul may be irrelevant but his behavior is still thought to be objectively immoral. And he shall be punished accordingly if caught. And, if not caught, the deed will still weigh heavily on his conscience.

What then makes his Aunt’s “cynical” approach to acts of murder – even genocide! – so ominous is that the implications of moral nihilism for the “human condition” becomes brutally clear. And, in the end, Judah “goes on with his life” – a satisfying and fulfilling life – as though Delores had never existed at all.

But: all the more ominnous is that Judah is still shown to be a cultured, civilized, decent and accomplished man. The incident with Delores was a stark exception.

What then of moral nihilism in the minds of those who were and are brutal and savage down to the core?

I think what is crucial here is how it depicts my point about “I” in the is/ought world reconfiguring given new experiences. There is before and after the murder of Delores. Just as there was the before and after the affair itself. But it’s one thing to rationalize adultery, another thing altogether to rationalize a cold blooded murder.

Or, perhaps, not? Over time, Judah manages to rationalize both. Others may not manage to rationalize either. It’s all embedded in one’s own existential trajectory. Some sociopaths start out given one or another moral compass, while others can experience a childhood in which there never really is a moral compass at all.

There are as many possible paths here as there are particular human beings out in particular worlds understood in particular ways.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Morality light? After all, what is Clifford losing Halley to Lester next to Judah hiring a hit man to kill Delores? It might be analogous to comparing Woody Allen’s relationship with 21 year old Soon-Yi Previn to those who allege that he sexually molested and abused 7 year old Dylan Farrow. And, in fact, some will argue that, as a moral nihilist – sociopath? – himself, Allen was more than capable of rationalizing both behaviors.

And, sure enough, in regard to this lighter sub-plot, I found myself becoming viscerally angered when Halley chose Lester over Clifford. It was the “wrong” thing to do given my own attachment to Clifford’s more substantive character. But this is something I am only able to attribute to dasein. Others are equally able to attach themselves to Lester for their own reasons.

That’s simply how human interactions can unfold. And we often find ourselves judging them based on our own assessment of good and bad choices.

Instead, my focus is always on the extent to which any value judgments in the form of moral narratives and political agendas are within reach of those ethicists who claim that the only legitimate path to wisdom here is through philosophy.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Next up [of course]: What would you do? And, more to the point in a philosophy venue, is there a way to, deontologically, come up with the definitive argument that establishes what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to do.

It’s like our individual reactions to the “real world” that seems to have successfully wrecked Woody Allen’s movie career. Flagrantly slanted documentaries like Allen v. Farrow – worldofreel.com/blog/2021/2 … q35lf3cgkw – are able to create a reality/“reality” in which facts/“facts” are able to be assembled to sustain one point of view.

But the tricky thing here is that, facts or not, many assume that Allen is capable of rationalizing even the sexual abuse of his own daughter. That, in being a moral nihilist himself, his own psychological defense mechanisms are never all that far removed from the behaviors of a sociopath. He wants something, he goes after it. As with Judah and Dolores, nothing is not okay if it sustains his own perceived self interests. In other words, scrap all that “philosophical” crap some seem to obsess on.

All I do here is to note how, in regard to our moral and political value judgments, the choices we make seem to be derived more from the arguments I make in my signature threads than from the arguments any number of moral objectivists here make in rooting the resolution of conflicting goods in God or deontology or ideology or nature. And how those decisions are derived in turn from any number social, political and economic contexts down through the ages.

Then, in acknowledging the existential implications of this, others are either more or less “fractured and fragmented” themselves.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

On the other hand, historically, every war finds itself intertwined in very different contexts/sets of circumstances. Was it better to suffer the evil that many saw embodied in a Nazi victory in World War II, or to inflict what they saw as evil in our own moral and political agenda. When does it become morally okay – even obligatory – to inflict pain and suffering on others in a particular war.

Then fast forward to Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq. How do the moral parameters here become, say, more ambiguous?

In Crimes and Misdemeanors, suppose Dolores was shown to pursue behaviors that many feel are immoral. Would it be more appropriate to inflict evil on her in order stop her from inflicting it on others. Could Judah have come to think of himself as the hero instead?

It’s all, well, existential…

Okay, but how is that not rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the manner in which I construe human identity here as the embodiment of dasein?

No, in view, for Socrates, Plato [and the author], meaning here becomes more “formal”. It is linked to conclusions about the self and morality that, in my view, are more intellectual contraptions…philosophical assessments that allow them to avoid the more “down to earth” arguments I make here in my signature threads.

The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.

More to the point [mine] the parts that some do find defensible theoretically…what then becomes of that defense when “for all practical purposes” they find themselves in a situation where their own assessments of ethical behavior are challenged by others?

To which I point out that, given the many, many, many very different experiences any particular individuals might have over time historically and across the globe culturally, how could value judgments not be profoundly subjective intellectually and profoundly subjunctive emotionally? And if subjective and subjunctive how do we reach the point where as philosophers/ethicists our arguments become less and less ambiguous.

My condition here is only that the theoretical conclusions be taken down out of the intellectual contraption clouds and be explored, well, existentially.

Okay, but how would this distinction be made in regard to moral values that come into conflict? From my vantage point the ambiguity here is derived from the fact that based on sets of experiences that can be radically different each individual subject is going to come away with different moral and political predispositions.

On the other hand, moral and political values that are not construed ambiguously/subjectively are anchored to religious or secular fonts that are said to encompass the only rational frame of mind.

Let’s call this ethical objectivism.

The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.

Okay, but how far removed is essence and nature from objective? It still comes down to the extent to which whatever you call your ethical values is construed by you as that which all rational and virtuous men and women are thought by you to be obligated to share if they wish to be thought of by you as both rational and virtuous.

And then the part where the creation of an ethics, however it is thought be by one as an individual, is still rooted more or less in one’s historical, cultural and circumstantial interactions. And in the ever evolving interaction of contingency, chance and change.

Meaning, from my frame of mind, that there really is no essence involved here. After all, we all don’t become who we are in the present based on the same past or projecting into the same future. Instead, one by one by one, our values are likely to be profoundly existential fabrications instead.

Here, of course, I make the distinction between aspects of our self derived from our genes, out biological predisposition, our demographic profile in which any number of factors related to our identity are the human equivalent of rocks and tables. They reflect objective facts about ourselves which are far more easily communicated to others as “things” about us. And then the “self” that comes to embody particular value judgments rooted far more subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

Again, there is what all of this is said to mean technically given the tools at the disposal of “serious philosophers”, and how ambiguity here is understood by me given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

That’s the part I wish to explore here. Given a particular context.

The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.

Here of course the assumption must be made that, for reasons we still are unable to grasp, the mind is able to “transcend” the body and discuss this distinction with some measure of free will, autonomy, volition…or whatever word is preferred in circumventing hard determinism. If the relationship between nature and nurture, genes and memes is entirely embedded in the laws of matter then, well, your guess is as good as mine.

So, here…

…we are back to all agreeing that the author is not noting only that which she was ever able to note and we are not reacting to it in the only possible manner in which nature compels us to.

I merely reconfigure this point in the general direction of the arguments I make in my signature threads. The nature of our being rooted “out in the world” given the components of my own intellectual contraption given descriptions, assessments and judgments passed regarding our existential freedom and moral obligations.

Again, how bogged down are we going to become in language such as this in discussing our own moral and political value judgments? It’s less a question of priorities in my view than in recognizing that sooner or latter our theoretical or technical conclusions are going to have to take on the mind and the matter, the self and the other, the individual and the society in regard to experiences and interactions that necessary intertwine the id and the ego and the superego. What of them then?

The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.

On the other hand, it’s only oppression if that’s what others are able to talk you into believing that it is. After all, for Sartre, “hell is other people” not only because the objectify you but because they think themselves into believing that they can tell you the one and the only way in which to embody moral and political value judgments. My point is merely to suggest that any number of existentialists fail to grasp the extent to which they are more than capable of objectifying themselves. By, for example, making a “philosophical” distinction between authentic and inauthentic behavior.

And not just in regard to gender roles. Only, for someone like me, the further I get away from authenticity the closer I get to fractured and fragmented. And eventually I reached the conclusion that it is almost impossible to say which is worse.

Again, “condemned” only to the extent that we are able to think ourselves into believing that we understand what he means by this. And, if we do think that we do, agree that it’s true. The part about being born to make choices is certainly the case. Not many exceptions there. But the part about choosing ethically and/or authentically seems rooted more in the assumptions that I make. As the "fractured and fragmented “I”.

On the other hand, is this just another example of “bad faith”?

The Ethics of Ambiguity
Charlotte Moore freely subjects de Beauvoir’s ethics to a discerning scrutiny.

Here, however, I always go back to the existential parameters of freedom in a No God world. If you think yourself into believing that sans God freedom becomes the embodiment of “in the absense of God all things are permitted”, then you can choose to behave as, say, the sociopath does. And, more to point, justify that frame of mind…philosophically? If there is no omniscient/omnipresent entity able to grasp everything that you do and, in being omnipotent, able to punish you for doing objectively wrong – sinful – things, then why not choose a morality that revolves around “what’s in it for me”?

You can still choose to fit into a community based on the accepted mores of that community…if it is to your advantage. But then choose not to if it is not to your advantage. You merely shift gears so as to focus more on not getting caught.

Again, back to this: In what particular context? We would have focus in on this clash between assessments of freedom and moral obligation, given a set of circumstances in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. How would someone who embraces de Beauvoir’s reaction differ from someone who embraced Sartre’s?

Inherently free, perhaps. But only given the assumption that the exercise of this freedom is always going to be situated within the parameters of the particular worlds experienced existentially in particular historical and cultural contexts. Isn’t it the fact of this that precipitates philosophical discussions that revolve around ethics either construed or not construed to be within the rational and virtuous parameters of deontology?