Jean-Paul Sartre#
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a French philosopher, novelist, playwright, and public intellectual, best known as the leading figure of existentialism. He lived through major political upheavals of the 20th century: World War II, the Nazi occupation of France, decolonization, and the Cold War. He consistently viewed philosophy as inseparable from lived experience and political engagement. Sartre refused the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964, arguing that writers should not allow themselves to be institutionalized.
Although Sartre never produced a systematic ethical treatise, ethical questions are central to his philosophical and literary work.
Being and Nothingness (1943): Sartre’s major philosophical work. While primarily ontological, it lays the foundation for his ethics through concepts such as freedom, responsibility, bad faith, and authenticity.
Existentialism Is a Humanism (1946): A public lecture defending existentialism against critics; this text offers Sartre’s clearest and most accessible ethical claims.
What Is Literature? (1947): A direct engagement with the ethical and political responsibility of the writer.
Notebooks for an Ethics (written 1947–1948, published posthumously in 1983): Sartre’s most explicit attempt to formulate an ethics grounded in freedom, though unfinished.
Plays and novels, such as No Exit (1944), Dirty Hands (1948), and The Roads to Freedom trilogy (1945–1949) dramatize ethical conflict, responsibility, and choice.
Existential responsibility#
Sartre argues that human beings are wholly responsible for what they do and for what they become through their actions. Even when individuals choose inaction, or simply conform to the norms of the community to which they belong, they remain responsible for that choice. There is no escape from responsibility. Each day calls for a moral decision: how will one spend the day? How will one affect others? Will one allow events to unfold passively, or will one attempt to intervene and shape them?
Sartre’s work is a provocation to the human conscience, an attempt to awaken the moral foundations upon which everyday life rests. We often rely on moral rules inherited from tradition, but how often do we pause to examine them and genuinely make them our own? Sartre criticizes institutionalized moral values not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they can encourage passivity: acting simply because “this is what is done.” He calls this attitude bad faith: living according to borrowed beliefs rather than one’s own convictions.
Sartre invites us to take a courageous stance: to shape our values and live in accordance with them, even in the face of risk and uncertainty. He calls us to engage fully with life: to act, to participate in society, and to bring forth what is meaningful. This does not require rejecting existing moral frameworks. One may find that established systems of ethics, philosophy, or spirituality align with one’s own commitments. What matters, however, is that this alignment is consciously chosen and continually reaffirmed. It must reflect one’s own will, not mere compliance with an external authority or inherited convention.
In this respect, Sartre’s account resonates with Kant and Aristotle in that all three locate the source of morality within the human agent. Kant and Aristotle appeal to reason as the foundation for determining what is morally right, while Sartre emphasizes that each individual must take responsibility for their choices and commit to their values. He does not reject reason or rational reflection; rather, he insists that moral frameworks, including Kantian and Aristotelian ones, must be actively appropriated and lived authentically. In other words, one may adopt these principles, but only as a result of one’s own reflective commitment, not simply because they are authoritative or widely accepted.
This perspective also resonates with al-Ghazālī’s call for inward reflection. While al-Ghazālī invites the seeker to discover God as a being with defined attributes, Sartre begins from the absence of any predefined authority. In Sartre’s view, there are no external guarantees, and values must be assumed and reaffirmed by the individual. Yet both thinkers converge in their ethical demand: human beings are called to examine themselves, commit to what is meaningful, and take responsibility for their choices. Sartre acknowledges that this condition can feel difficult or even unhappy, because the search for meaning or transcendence cannot be guaranteed. Still, he insists that individuals must assume responsibility for shaping their lives and for living sincerely in accordance with what they find significant. What matters is not whether one discovers God or adheres to a particular metaphysical framework, but that one acts authentically and avoids living in bad faith.
If a person reflects carefully and employs reason, they may arrive at Aristotle’s ethics or Kant’s categorical imperative. If they turn inward in pursuit of moral or spiritual refinement, they may encounter God or divine principles, as al-Ghazālī suggests. Others may be drawn to ethics of care, such as Lindemann’s approach, or to relational frameworks like Mbiti’s or Mogobe Ramose’s ubuntu. One may also integrate multiple traditions, adding a personal perspective and shaping a coherent moral outlook. What is essential, from a Sartrean perspective, is not which framework is chosen, but that one acts consciously and responsibly: refusing to follow rules or traditions unthinkingly. The call is to be courageous, to embrace responsibility, and to shape one’s life through reflective, committed action.
Ultimately, Sartre’s critique is directed at the teachers of morality: those who present moral foundations as absolute and unquestionable; those who invite obedience without reflection; those who expect their words to be followed uncritically. He challenges those who teach morality through compliance while lacking genuine understanding themselves, thereby passing conformity on to their students. Such teachers have forgotten the principles they claim to uphold and no longer act with practical wisdom. Sartre concedes that students may listen to moral authorities, but in the end, he makes them aware that action or inaction remains the students’ moral responsibility.
Existential courage#
Sartre and other existential thinkers treat courage as a mode of acting: the willingness to commit oneself through action in the face of uncertainty, risk, and the absence of guarantees. Courage, in this sense, consists in acting in alignment with what one takes to be meaningful, even when one’s understanding is incomplete and the outcome unclear. What distinguishes this existential account from classical virtue ethics is that there is no requirement that practical wisdom be fully developed prior to action.
In classical virtue ethics, courage is admirable in part because it is exercised with discernment, shaped by experience, and integrated into a broader structure of character and practical wisdom. By contrast, existential accounts emphasize the irreducible urgency of action: individuals are always already called upon to choose and to act, even when they lack sufficient knowledge, experience, or moral certainty. The absence of full practical wisdom does not excuse inaction, because not acting is itself a choice for which one remains responsible.
Recognizing something as significant or worth pursuing is sufficient, from an existential perspective, to justify commitment. It is through such commitments that moral insight and practical understanding are gradually formed. Reflection alone cannot generate wisdom; practical wisdom develops through engagement, through acting, responding, revising, and taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices. Where moral education emphasizes obedience or rule-following without personal appropriation, genuine practical wisdom cannot emerge.
Rather than opposing virtue ethics, the existential understanding of courage can be seen as addressing a formative dimension of moral life: the stage at which individuals must act responsibly before stable virtues or reliable judgment have taken shape. Through repeated acts of commitment, accompanied by reflection and self-critique, patterns of action may emerge that resemble what virtue ethics later describes as character. In this sense, existential courage precedes and enables the development of practical wisdom and virtuous courage.
Although Sartre rejects the idea that possessing a virtuous character trait can by itself guarantee moral action, he acknowledges that sustained engagement in responsible action can cultivate durable forms of understanding and responsiveness. Courage, understood existentially, is thus both the exercise of freedom and the practice through which one learns how to live it. By acting, committing, and assuming responsibility in situations of uncertainty, individuals continually bring their moral lives into being.
Sartre’s ethical guidelines#
Take full responsibility for your actions Recognize that every choice is yours, even when it seems constrained by social norms, roles, or circumstances. Avoid blaming external authorities, rules, or “fate” for your decisions. Pause before acting to ask: Am I choosing this freely, or am I hiding behind someone else’s standard?
Reflect consciously on your values: Identify what matters most to you in life through introspection. Question inherited or culturally imposed norms to see whether they align with your authentic values. Write down or articulate your values clearly to make them explicit.
Choose and reaffirm your commitments actively: Once you identify a value, commit to it deliberately in concrete situations. Reassess and reaffirm your commitments regularly to ensure they remain genuine. Resist following rules or traditions blindly: alignment with your chosen values must be intentional.
Act courageously in alignment with your values: Take action even when outcomes are uncertain or risky. Step outside comfort zones to engage with situations that challenge your integrity.
Engage in reflective practice and moral learning: Treat each action as an opportunity to learn about yourself and refine your values. Develop “practical insight” through repeated reflection and conscious action.
Respect the freedom of others: Recognize that others are also free agents responsible for their own choices. Avoid imposing your values on others as absolutes; encourage dialogue and mutual understanding. Take into account how your actions affect others.