




































 
 

36 
 

JEAN PAUL SARTRE’S ABSOLUTE FREEDOM AND ITS ETHICAL 

IMPLICATIONS 

 

Ebo, Henry Obinze, PhD 

Directorate of General studies 

University of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 

Umuagwo, Imo State 

 

& 

 

Okewu, Michael Peter 

Claretian University of Nigeria Nekede 

 

Abstract 

Jean Paul Sartre believes that man is absolutely free, and this notion of his absolute freedom 

has brought about subjectivism and relativism in ethical and moral issues, neglecting the 

natural law in terms of life preservation and human dignity. This conception which is contrary 

to the original and authentic nature of the human person of body and soul has led to the 

different abuses and devaluation of the human person by many who feel they are free to do 

whatever they want and as they want.  For Sartre, existence precedes essence, freedom is 

absolute and existence is freedom. Freedom for Sartre is not the freedom to do something. He 

says “you are free” because you always have a choice, “therefore choose”. But this creates 

anxiety and anguish; individuals flee in self-deception and continue leading inauthentic lives. 

Man is free when his consciousness acknowledges that something is lacking, when he makes a 

purpose of himself, and when he commits. Sartre rejects determinism because he holds 

individuals to be outside of the world. There are no excuses which can be rooted in the idea of 

‘human nature’ and this absolute freedom has really caused more harm in the society and even 

dehumanizes.  This work tends to expose Jean-Paul Sartre’s notion of absolute freedom and its 

ethical implication. 

 

Key Words: Absolute, Freedom, subjectivism, human dignity and existence. 

 

Introduction 

The human person as an existential being is created as an authentic and unique being. Life is a gift 

that comes with dignity and is expected to be lived virtuously. However, it has been noticed that this 

dignity of man has been defied and dehumanized because one thinks he/she is free to do what he/she 

likes. Morality is seen as a mere act like any other thing. The implication therefore is that there is no 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

37 
 

universal law guiding the society because each human person has absolute freedom to do what 

pleases them.  

 

Freedom has really been misconstrued among people and this has brought about the reputation act 

towards the others. Many have seen freedom as the ability to do whatever one wants and how one 

wants it, forgetting that the other person’s freedom begins from where theirs stop.  Freedom implies 

the chance to choose for oneself, yet man does not choose himself in the world. Thus, man is 

determined in a lot of respect.   

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote extensively on freedom. For him, man is condemned to be free. 

According to him, the only sense in which we are not free is that we are not free not to be free. 

Sartre’s notion of freedom cannot be understood without understanding the ‘situation.’ For 

Sartre, man as being-in-the-world is always in situation but despite this situation in which he 

finds himself, he is always freely creating worlds. Thus, the ability of man to always freely 

create worlds despite his entanglement in the situation leads Sartre to declare that man is 

condemned to be free (Sartre, 2005, 77). Thus, this condemnation of man to freedom is in line 

with the idea that man has absolute freedom, which today is making men to act as irrational 

beings. Thus, the essay tends to establish that man is not absolutely free to what he/she likes or 

behaves irrationally. 

 

Statement of the Problem  

Jean-Paul Sartre’s absolutization of freedom in his existentialism has brought about relativistic and 

even subjectivistic approaches to freedom in contemporary society. The deification of the self, by 

which Sartre wants man to be a being-for-itself, is the order of the day, making man one who creates 

his own morality. And this is really making us losing the virtuous life we ought to live. So, the focus 

in this work will be an attempt to restore this dignity of the human person that is deteriorating if not 

being lost in our time.  

This has however; brought about several social ills in society and situations where humans are 

degraded to be tools for the benefit of the other. The other person becomes a threat to me and I 

become as well a threat to the other. This situation means that our society does not enjoy living 

together, sharing things in common, but finds itself in a situation where hatred, envy and 

exploitation prevail.  

Looking at the Sartre’s notion of freedom a critical mind may tend to ask questions like:  

 Is man free to take his life that he/she can never give to himself or other? 

 Does freedom mean to do what one likes? 

 Is my freedom not limited by others freedom? 

 Can morality be separated from operational freedom? 



 
 

38 
 

 Should right and just freedom be guided by morality and natural law? 

These questions and similar ones would be answered in the course of this research work.  

In his writing Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre attempted to say that the being for-itself is 

not responsible for himself alone but for all men because by choosing for himself he chooses 

for all. Does this not result in an absolute monarchical and totalitarian claim? How can one 

person by choosing for himself choose for all others? Jean-Paul Sartre’s pronouncement that 

Man is condemned to be free has been the propeller of this research, with the aim of 

transforming the minds of people from their conceived notion of absolute freedom, to that of 

an ethically lived freedom. Hence we shall make a critical study of Sartre’s Absolutism in 

Freedom and its Ethical implications.  

Objectives of the Study 

The essay purposefully shoulders the task of undertaking a profound reflection over the rhetoric 

of human respect in the society and the massacre of people by people. This essay is a clarion 

call over the apparent forgetfulness of the dignity of the human person in our society in the 

name of freedom. It is a clear call on us to take serious note of the acute danger of slaughtering 

ourselves daily because of socio-politico-religious issues.  

Jean-Paul Sartre in his philosophy came up with the notion of absolute freedom for man. 

However, our society today seems to be following the trend of Sartre on his concept of absolute 

freedom. Some individuals in our society today, see themselves as absolutely free beings thus 

creating their own morality based on relativism and subjectivism. This work is relevant today, 

in an era of relativism and subjectivism in which it is affirmed that human beings make their 

own truth individually, freedom is spoken about as in contraposition to any objective truth, as 

if freedom were the ability to act anyhow in itself, and not a faculty specifically human that is 

actually aimed to the accomplishment of the human being. Therefore, in the midst of moral 

decadence in our society today, this work answers a call to reaffirm and make an attempt to 

give a paradigm to the understanding of freedom as opposed to that of Jean-Paul Sartre in his 

philosophy. 

 

Clarification of Terms 

Sartre distinguished between two kinds of being namely conscious being (être- pour -soi) and 

unconscious being (être- en- soi). He identities conscious being (being for itself) with the 

human being. 

Being-In-Itself 

Being-in-itself, according to Sartre, is both the unconscious being of phenomena: houses, 

stones and sand, and the being of ideas. They have nothing secret or hidden. They are in fact a 

synthesis: the synthesis of itself in itself. 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

39 
 

Being-for-Itself 

Being-for-itself means simply the person or human reality. The being-for-itself is the free, 

conscious, autonomous and responsible being. For-itself is the being of subjects, not of objects 

or things of ideas. It characterizes man as acting and conscious, as distinct from the beings of 

unconscious objects. The being- for-itself is characteristically active, self-regarding and self-

affirming of its being. 

 

 Sartre’s Concept Freedom 

Among the many attributes of man is freedom. Apart from the cognitive level at which man 

distinguishes himself from animals and other inferior beings, man also possesses freedom. 

According to Sartre, man becomes conscious of his freedom when he is thrown into a critical 

‘situation’ in which he is called upon to choose between the given alternatives for a life time. 

Human freedom is seen by Sartre in terms of negation, nihilation and nothingness. Freedom is 

the capacity of negation, nihilation which characterize the being for- itself.  The foundation of 

freedom is nothingness. Negation directly engages my freedom, says Sartre, (Sartre, 2005, 78-

79). 

  

Freedom as Related to Man 

Man has life in common with all living beings. In common with animals, he has sensitive 

knowledge and instinctive inclinations towards those things which correspond to his own needs 

or fundamental appetites. Man however, distinguishes himself at the cognitive level from 

animals and other inferior beings by virtue of the intelligence which allows him a total aperture 

either towards the world or towards himself. The appetitive level he distinguishes himself by 

virtue of a will by which he freely chooses within the space of the aperture that which he retains 

as more opportune for the realization of his own being. Man, beyond being intelligent, is also 

free. Freedom is therefore, another attribute of his excellence and nobility, and represents 

another great window for looking into the mystery of man, with a goal of acquiring a more 

correct, more complete, more adequate comprehension of him. 

Furthermore, whoever attaches a real meaning to the term ‘freedom’ negatively expresses a 

certain absence of necessity. It is evident, therefore, that being subject must be called being 

free, for it is through his freedom that man transcends necessity. Freedom however, should be 

understood positively as a certain autonomy of being, a certain independence of being, a 

belonging to oneself on the ground of a ‘to be’ which is his own and thus not generated. 

Scholastic philosophy uses the term ‘substance’ for the ontological autonomy of man as subject. 

 

  



 
 

40 
 

Absolutism of Freedom in Sartre’s Existentialism 

Sartre is usually misunderstood as having an exaggerated view of human freedom, no doubt 

because of the claims in the “Existentialism and Humanism” lecture that there is no 

determinism; we are free, we are freedom, we are condemned to be free. The only sense, in 

which we are not free for Sartre, is that we are not free not to be free. Sartrean freedom cannot 

be understood without understanding the ‘situation.’ A human being is not separable from the 

human condition (Stephen, 2001, 28).  

Sartre endorses Heidegger’s view that we are ‘thrown’ into the world. We are but did not choose 

to be. Seemingly, inconsistently with this, Sartre says that, in a sense, I choose to be born. 

Clearly however, any kind of Platonic pre-existence is out of the question here. Sartre thinks it 

is false that we pre-date our empirical existence. Drawing a distinction between existence and 

essence, Sartre means that what my birth is, or is to be me, largely depends on how I freely 

think of it. Its significance is the significance I bestow upon it. Thus, freedom does not pre-date 

existence. Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes the essence we freely choose.  

According to Stephen Priest, Sartre says in his Being and Nothingness that a person is their 

freedom. He however identifies the upsurge of freedom, choice, and the person himself, as one 

and the same being. Thus he says “I do not have my freedom. I am it.” The will has no role in 

the exercise of Sartrean freedom. The moment the will operates; the decision is already taken. 

Thus Sartre’s libertarianism entails that human actions are unpredictable. For Sartre, the only 

respect in which I am free is that I am free not to be free. I am not able not to choose (Stephen, 

2001, 180). 

 

Sartre’s Freedom and the Negation of Other Inferences 

Freedom for Sartre negates other influences like God which we will be looking at in this part. 

Strictly speaking, Sartre has only one argument to reject God, namely ‘man’s freedom.’ This 

argument is thus presented in different ways. Human freedom, as it is conceived by Sartre, 

simply cannot tolerate the idea that there is a God. On decisive issues of his philosophy, Sartre 

drops the phenomenological dimension of thinking by isolating being-for-itself from facticity. 

The consequence is that freedom as transcendence is inflated to absolute autonomy. If 

occasionally Sartre describes the situation character of freedom, the value of the description is 

undermined by his conviction that the meaning of the situation is determined by subjectivity in 

a wholly autonomous way. The next step Sartre takes is the denial of any dependence of man 

upon God.  

For Sartre, God is not king of human kind, for man is free. If God had wanted to rule man he 

says, he should not have created him as a free being. For me this assertion of Sartre is a 

contradiction, for an atheist who had denied the existence of God, affirms his existence at this 

point as one who created man. He further says that at the very moment when God created man 

as a free being, this freedom turned against God, insofar as man as freedom no longer belongs 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

41 
 

to God. Thus, there is no one to give orders to man. He goes on to say, there is no God, for man 

is free. A real God would press man as freedom to death. However, man is free and, therefore, 

there cannot be God. Sartre posits a question: why must a real God destroy human freedom? 

To justify this idea, Sartre relies on classical thinking about God as creator. God creates in 

accord with a certain idea of reality to be created, just as an artisan who makes a paperknife 

first has an idea of that paperknife. God, then, is a superior craftsman, and the result of his act 

of creation is prefixed in God’s idea. The question to arise would be what is the meaning of 

this being fixed with respect to man? According to Sartre, it means that man as freedom is 

destroyed. For man is reduced to something like a paperknife, to a being that is what he is not; 

he is a project and as transcendence, he is the execution of this project. It is the subject itself, 

which controls this execution. Man is not, but makes himself. Thus to admit a real God, Sartre 

thinks, amounts to conceiving man as a thing, as a being which lies prostrated upon itself. It is 

the denial of man as project, as transcendence, as freedom. 

Sartre also denied God in his study of intersubjectivity. He asks what is God if there is a God? 

He is the other par excellence. However, what does the experience of the other’s subjectivity 

mean for me? As we explained above, ‘to experience the other’s subjectivity means to 

experience his stare, to experience my being looked at.’ This stare implies the death of my 

subjectivity as project, as transcendence, as freedom. Under the other’s stare, I appear as a thing 

in the world, I am what I am. My being-for-the-other means that I am robbed of my 

transcendence. However, if I want to save my manhood, I have to raise myself, reject through 

my stare the other’s subjectivity and reduce him to a thing in the world. 

 

The Proof of God’s Existence  

As understood in traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is the creator of the cosmos. 

Leibniz puts this clearly in the 17th century when he wrote “try as we may, we cannot do without 

God”. 

A cosmological argument is an argument that begins with a phenomenon in the universe and 

traces it beyond the universe to its origin in an ultimate cause which is identified as God. A 

cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of 

God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, 

contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. 

Cosmological arguments for God’s existence propose that God is the ultimate explanation or 

cause of everything. Such arguments begin with an empirical observation of the world—that 

there is motion, or causes, or just ordinary things that exist—and conclude this observation is 

explained by God’s existence. The locus classicus for the statement of the cosmological 

arguments is in the five ways of Aquinas. Motion, causation, contingency, degrees of perfection 

and order and harmony in the universe.in the universe. 



 
 

42 
 

Around us, things are in motion.  St. Thomas Aquinas argued that all the causation and motion 

we observe can be traced back to God, who is an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. In 

summary: 

1. Causes and motion exist. 

2. All causation or motion requires some prior cause or motion; things can’t happen nor 

move for no reason. 

3. But this chain of causation or motion cannot go back infinitely; this seems impossible. 

4. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause, or first, unmoved mover. 

5. The most plausible example of an uncaused cause or unmoved mover would be God. 

6. Therefore, God exists. 

Aquinas thinks that if an object is in motion, it must be caused to move by something outside 

itself. Aquinas got this idea from Aristotle. Aristotle held that if an object continues to move, 

its motion must be sustained by a force that keeps it in motion. If you remove the force, the 

object stop moving. Aquinas thus encounters the principle that whatever is moved is moved by 

another nothing is the cause of its own motion. 

 

The Ethical Implications of Jean Paul Sartre’s Absolute Freedom 

The aim of this heading is to examine the implications that arise or have arisen form this 

absolutism in freedom which Sartre has postulated. Sartre’s postulation of absolute freedom 

for man (man is condemned to be free), has fallen into the trap of positing anti-social values. 

Examples of these anti-social values are euthanasia, abortion, suicide and many more. Thus, 

today, our society is suffering from many ills, because of the so called freedom. 

Abortion 

Abortion is defined medically as the termination of pregnancy by any means before the foetus 

is sufficiently developed to survive. However, the practice of induced abortion requires a 

definition that is properly descriptive of moral reality (Alvare, 2003, 24). In the light of this, 

John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) defines abortion which 

he called ‘procured abortion’ as “The deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is 

carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from 

conception to birth (John Paul II, 2005, 307).  The notion of abortion has sparked a lot of 

debate, some consenting to it, and some disapproving of it. However, in contemporary society, 

many hold the idea that they are free to decide for themselves what is good, thus being in line 

with Sartre’s concept of freedom. 

Sartre believes that man has freedom to choose what is good for him as an existing individual 

without the influence of anything from without, and that we can never make a wrong choice. 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

43 
 

Sartre succinctly asserts; “Man is condemned to be free (Moses, 2005, 132-133). Man makes 

himself through choices among alternatives in his life as a pure subjectivity. According to this 

view of Sartre, we always choose the right and nothing can be good for us without being good 

for all. So we should therefore not accept the ready-made or static concept as it may be of 

existence forced upon us. Although Sartre does not talk about the unborn as such, his starting 

point however is that man is born in the world without his own knowledge and that his state in 

the world is that of being-thrown-in-the-world. This conviction was initiated by Martin 

Heidegger and later picked up by Sartre. This statement of Sartre means that man’s being in 

the world is not determined by any force or even by God because there is no God in absolute 

freedom of man. Thus, man should never appeal to any authority for explanations about his 

morals. By saying that man is what he wills himself to be after his thrust towards existence, 

Sartre meant that man is free to shape his life as he pleases, irrespective of any pervading 

circumstances (Moses, 2005, 136). 

Based on this assertion of Sartre, the problem of abortion can only be looked at from an 

individual point of view, and not what the regulations or laws state to be right for a group. The 

law can only be applied to social groups or some objective systems like schools or learning 

institutions. By doing this, we also avoid what Søren Kierkegaard calls the crowd mentality. 

According to Sartre, a person is born or begins to exist the moment he/she becomes conscious 

as ‘for-itself’ (conscious being). Because the foetus is being-in-itself (not conscious) it follows 

that it is not in existence; but it is a form of possible existence or a being that exists as a 

projection for the future. As a projection of the future, it is a freedom or a choice that has to be 

made (Moses, 2005, 136).  

Furthermore, Sartre’s argument for abortion which is based on situation is not logically 

ascertained. A woman or girl pregnant, yes! It is obviously true that she finds herself in a 

situation which could have come through any means either as a result of rape or incest. 

However, the fact of being in this situation does not justify abortion since it is never right to 

repay evil with evil (I have been raped which is evil, consequently, I commit abortion which 

also is evil). The greatest love one can show in the midst of this situation is sacrifice and 

responsibility towards the sacredness of life. Through this, we portray our love and respect for 

life because ‘if I were to have been aborted. I would have not been in existence today.’ 

Euthanasia 

The term ‘Euthanasia,’ is from the Greek words eu thanatos. Eu meaning ‘well,’ ‘good,’ or 

‘easy’ and thanatos dying or death. It has today also become more commonly equated with one 

form of dying namely, ‘mercy killing (Friday, 2003, 457).’ According to Blessing Agidigbi, 

“Euthanasia is the wilful, direct or indirect killing of the incurably sick, be it at their request or 

the request of the patients, guardians or any other legal representative in the case of incurables 

who are incapable of deciding for themselves, for example, infants, the irrevocably comatose 

and mental defectives (Agidigbi, 2005,125). 



 
 

44 
 

There have been big controversies on whether euthanasia is permissible or not. Contemporary 

society with its liberal and utilitarian approaches to things has applied approaches to life which 

are not acceptable. The moral conscience is regarded as a mere human fabrication. This leads 

to arguments for and against the legitimacy of euthanasia. 

Those who defend the legitimacy of euthanasia, have three main arguments to support their 

position. First, they see euthanasia as a dimension of human freedom and argue that the value 

represented by respect for autonomy is incomplete unless it encompasses the limiting case of 

suicide or assisted suicide. The second is that they argue that suicide and euthanasia are 

legitimate ways of bringing to an end suffering which cannot be adequately controlled or ended 

in any other way. This approach is however said to be able to undermine autonomy because it 

lapses if there is an equally effective way of controlling the pain and suffering. The third type 

of defense of euthanasia is exemplified by Ronald Dworkin’s account which argues that 

“Respect for the intrinsic value of life, properly understood, sees life essentially as meaningful 

and valuable because of the shape given to it by the individual whose life it is, and that this 

shaping must include control over life’s end (Harris, 2005, 580). 

 Put differently, according to this view it is not all autonomous decisions to end life that are 

justified, but only those which consent to the agent’s own conception of what it is that makes 

their life make sense.  

These arguments are Sartre’s notion of absolute freedom where Sartre claims that man is 

condemned to be free. According to him, I do not have my freedom. I am it (Sartre, 2001, 180) 

by man being free, Sartre says he is also responsible for his actions. Thus for Sartre euthanasia 

is allowed because I am solely responsible for my actions. This means that I can choose to do 

whatever I want because I am free and responsible. This however leads to moral decadence. 

On the other hand, those who argue against the moral legitimacy of euthanasia appeal to some 

‘sanctity of life’ principle stressing the fact that the intentional termination of life is always 

immoral, no matter the circumstance surrounding such an act. They stress the fact that any 

systematic acceptance of euthanasia would lead to a damaging consequence for society – for 

instance, a lessening of respect for human life. With this divergence in views, should euthanasia 

be permissible? To this question, our stand should be clear like the religious stand on euthanasia 

which affirms the fact that God is the giver of life and he alone has the right to withdraw such 

a life if he so wishes. This means that no other person or being has the right to take the life that 

the creator (God) has created (Agidigbi, 2005, 130). 

This position disallows active euthanasia which is done voluntarily. It also disallows passive 

euthanasia where it is felt that ‘since he/she is going to die after all, there is no need of giving 

treatment.’ The question is who says he/she would die? As long as he/she lies on bed even 

though he/she may be unconscious, he/she is still a human being and life has to be protected. 

The one who gives life is the one who takes it back. We are just caretakers of our life since the 

owner is God the creator. The doctor, who takes an oath to protect life by all means possible 

and does not do so because he feels there is no need, is not acting morally and acts against 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

45 
 

medical ethics. He is to save life at all costs. It is however acceptable that the patient dies while 

being taken proper care of rather than the other way round of dying because of negligence. The 

human being at the critical situation (like the situation of sickness) demands our care and 

availability. This is another area where the voice of intersubjectivity and love is calling us. We 

are not only brothers and sisters in times of joy but also in times of suffering, but this suffering 

should not be resolved by the irrational and impatient suggestion of euthanasia. Our concern to 

our brothers and sisters in suffering is to be available to them, take care of them and love them 

in their situation. 

Suicide 

Contemporary society is filled with the idea of absolute freedom over one’s life. Our society 

today speaks the language of suicide. Thus if I feel I have no meaning in life or that life seems 

to be a misery, the only thing to do is commit suicide, because living is only adding to my 

problems and not reducing them. The majority of those falling victims to this brain washing 

idea are young people. 

When we speak of suicide here, we are speaking in the strict sense as the direct killing of 

oneself on one’s own authority (Gonslaves, 1986, 246). Direct killing is an act of killing that 

is directly voluntary; meaning, death is intended either as an end or as a means to an end. Either 

the action is capable of only one effect and that effect is death, or the action is capable of several 

effects, including death, and among this death is the effect intended, either for its own sake or 

as a means to something else. Many opinions have been raised on the permissibility of suicide, 

some for and some against. 

Among the arguments in favour of suicide is that first they say it is understood that no one 

should commit suicide for whom life holds out some hope or promise, and that people suffering 

from temporary despondency should be prevented from harming themselves, but there are 

always some for whom life has become an intolerable and irremediable burden. Thus, they are 

useless to society and to themselves. For them, it is better therefore for all concerned to retire 

from the scene of life through the ever open door. Another is that they argue admitting that God 

has given us life, yet it is truly a gift. No gift is expected to be retained indefinitely at the 

expense and to the harm of the receiver. When its possession becomes more injurious than its 

surrender it should be in accordance with the will of a good God and a wise use of his gift to 

relinquish it (Gonslaves, 1986, 246). 

For Sartre, suicide is one of the ultimate possible which must always be present for us when 

there is a question of envisaging a situation. Thus for Sartre, if I am in a particular situation, 

and based on this situation I want to commit suicide; I am free because I am responsible for 

my being. 

However, those who oppose suicide argue that suicide is often an act of cowardice and a refusal 

to face life courageously. They argue that we take the easy way out when we thrust the burdens 

we cannot bear onto the shoulders of our dependents. But not all are in this case they say; 

rather; they themselves are a burden on others. Yet they must not forget the worth of their own 



 
 

46 
 

person. Again they argue that life is a gift from God, but some gifts are given outright and 

others have strings attached. All God’s gifts are restricted, but not because of any lack in his 

generosity, but because he has to make us responsible for their use when he entrusts them to 

our freedom. Freedom itself is perhaps his greatest gift, but we are not allowed to misuse it, 

though we are able to do so. Life has been given, and its allotted span goes with the gift. It is 

not ours to decide when we have had enough of it and to tell God that we are quitting 

(Gonslaves, 1986, 248). 

Gabriel Marcel also argued against suicide. According to him, I can live in such a way that I 

belong to my body, am identified with it; or I can treat my body as an instrument in such a way 

that I am enslaved by it. He says suicide is the extreme case in which I seem to dispose of my 

body with absolute freedom of choice, but I am really the victim of a tragic illusion. The 

positive meaning of my liberty is the possibility of affirmation, the response to an invitation 

(Blackham, 1961, 69) Furthermore, Marcel asserts that it is not possible to apply my body as 

an object of ‘having’ in the way I have a car, a pen, or a book. In this having, the object of 

having reveals itself as an exteriority. There is a distance between what I have and me. What I 

have is to a certain extent independent of me. Thus I can dispose of my body as in the case of 

suicide or give it away without ceasing to be what I am. The same for Marcel cannot be asserted 

of my body.  

My body is not so far removed from my conscious self, as is the ashtray on my desk. Likewise, 

he says, my body is not something external to me like my car. Thus I cannot dispose of my 

body, give it away as I dispose of money, or give away my golf clubs. All this, Marcel says, 

stems from the fact that my body is not ‘a’ body but ‘my’ body, not in the same way as my golf 

clubs are mine, but in such a way that my body embodies me. Even in the midst of suicide, I 

see it as a contradiction to equate absolute freedom and suicide. Actually, the argument is thus, 

one who claims that he possesses absolute freedom and then chooses suicide is contradicting 

his absolute freedom. To choose suicide is the affirmation that the absolute freedom he 

possesses is betrayed. Dying through suicide is actually that he wants to strip himself of that 

freedom which he thinks he has in absolute. 

 

Conclusion 

It is clear that the absolute freedom which Sartre is proposing would lead to a whole lot of 

chaos in the society. Thus, our society would no longer be one where lives and property can be 

secured but rather a place of insecurity and tyranny because of the fact of some people thinking 

they have the absolute freedom and power to run the affairs of the state as they like thereby 

bringing about social and political problems. 

Sartre’s assertion lacks inter-human morality, community and social justice. Since, for him, the 

being-for-itself is the source of all meaning other human person cannot possibly make a 

significant meaning to him. If each individual is condemned to be free, that is, is responsible 

for all meaning, he or she will also be condemned to his or her own world without having 

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

47 
 

anything in common with others. But the reality of life shows that human community and social 

justice is very important when it concerns genuine humanism. Thus, we cannot admit that 

Sartre’s existentialism is humanism insofar it lacks these elements. After all Sartre admitted 

this by exclaiming that other people are hell for me (Levinas, 1969, 84)  

According to Emmanuel Levinas Freedom is called into question only when in as much as it 

somehow finds itself imposed upon itself: if I could have freely chosen my own existence 

everything would be justified. In other words, freedom that imposes itself is put into question 

at the encounter with the Other. On the contrary, my freedom according to Levinas should be 

for the sake of the Other. As ‘I’ encounters the Other, is called back to the meaning of its 

freedom and this freedom however is called to responsibility and obligation towards the Other 

is genuine freedom. The encounter with the Other in Sartre threatens my freedom, and is 

equivalent to the fall of my freedom under the gaze of another freedom (Levinas, 1969, 84). 

Unlike Sartre, when the Other threatens my freedom, it is not for worse but rather for good, in 

the sense that, being in encounter with the Other, my freedom according to Levinas must be 

translated into responsibility and also goodness towards the Other. In this case, my freedom is 

not for its own sake but for the sake of the Other. 

Absolutism of freedom in Sartre’s existentialism is criticized by Marcel in two forms which 

are in his philosophy of inter-subjectivity and his concept of being and having. Marcel as a 

philosopher of inter-subjectivity stresses the fact that interpersonal relationship is an essential 

aspect of human existence which is opposed to Sartre’s notion of being-for-others which is of 

conflict and not relational. According to him, man is essentially a being that is embodied in the 

world and it is as such that he experiences himself and becomes conscious of himself. He 

discovers himself in the world and in the midst of others as an embodied spirit. There is no 

need of proving the existence of the world or the existence of others since man is essentially 

related both to the world and to others (Olusola, 2008, 5). 

Sartre’s notion of absolutism has left our society with moral relativity. Thus bringing about a 

conflict between being (what we are) and having (what we possess). Many people today see 

themselves as objects of having, meaning that they feel they are absolutely free to do to 

themselves as they like and when they feel they are through, they dispose of themselves like 

any other possession they have. This is what leads, for example to suicide. Thus it is crystal 

clear that Sartre’s philosophy of absolute freedom brings nothing other than relativism which 

in turn brings about social ills. 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

48 
 

References 

Agidigbi, B. (2005). Euthanasia: conceptual and ethical issues. In Pantaleon Iroegbu & 

Anthony Echekwube (Eds.), Kpim of morality ethics: general, special & professional.. 

Heineman Educational Books Plc. 

Alvare, H.M. “Abortion,” (2003), New Catholic Encyclopedia, ed., Bernard L. Marthaler, 

vol.,2, 2nd edn. Farmington Hills: Thomas Gale, 2003. 

Blackham, H.J. (1961). Six Existentialist Thinkers. Routledge. 

Chauhan S. R. et al (Eds). (2006). International Dimension of Human Rights. Global Vision 

Publication House. 

Collinson, C. (2005). Fifty Major Philosophers: A Reference Guide. Routledge. 

Copleston, F. A. (2005). History of Philosophy: 19th and 20th Century French Philosophy. 

Volume 9. Continuum. 

Friday, R.M. (2003). “Euthanasia.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia, B. L. Marthaler (ed.). 

Volume 5. Thomson Gale. 

Harris, J. (2005). The Ethics of Euthanasia. In E. Craig (Ed.), The Shorter Routledge 

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. 

Iroegbu, P. (1995). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. International University Press Ltd. 

John Paul II. (2005). Evangelium Vitae. Carmel International Publishing House. 

Kamber, R. (2000). On Sartre. Wadsworth. 

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity. A. Lingis (Trans.). Duquese University Press. 

Milton A. G. (1986). Fagothey’s Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, 9th edition. 

Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Moses, A.A. (2005). Existentialism and The Problem of Abortion from the Perspective of Jean-

Paul Sartre,” R.A. Akanmidu (Ed.), Footprints in Philosophy (pp.132-133). Hope 

Publications Ltd.  

Sartre, J.P. (2001). Basic Writings. Stephen Priest (Ed & Trans.). Routledge, 2001. 

Sartre, J.P. (2005). Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. H. E. 

Barnes (Trans.) Routledge. 

 

  

Jean Paul Sartre's Absolute Freedom And Its Ethical Implications  - Ebo, Henry Obinze & Okewu, Michael Peter 


