Sartre's and Kant's Account of Freedom - Essay Example

?The concept of freedom is one of the main for different peoples and communities in order to get the best they can and to have peaceful relationships, therefore. However, an entirely difficult meaning of freedom differs for various persons and even whole nations. In this respect a philosophical treatment of what freedom is serves as an optimal drive toward understanding thereof. Two philosophers, Jean-Paul Sartre and Immanuel Kant, are taken into consideration in terms of their justification of freedom. Each interpretation is to be weighed and further discussed. Nevertheless, looking at the universal aspects of morality and rationality, Kantian “freedom” is more cogent to get it and further put in action. First off, the existentialistic ideas proposed by Sartre follow the idea of absurd and determinism. To be precise, Sartre is likely to suggest a free will when he talks on freedom able to override people’s rationality (Palmer 283). In other words, he pinpoints that a man is allowed to do what he/she wants to notwithstanding possible negative outcomes after possessing such a freedom. Obviously, Sartre highlights the concept of freedom in keeping with the best tradition of the existentialism. As opposed to Kant’s interpretation, Sartre underpins the idea of freedom by the idea of values people get thereafter: “Sartre has radicalized Kant’s view that the source of value is always the human being, and he has prioritized freedom over rationality” (Palmer 292). Henceforth, Sartre does not rely on the omnipotence and power of reason. Regardless of it, he shows up the pleasure of freedom as if behind the social life. In turn, Kant would oppose this characterization by giving more grounds to freedom which is a result of a man’s rationality. Immanuel Kant worked out his own vision of the moral philosophy when highlighting the need for freedom. However, he suggests lots of arguments to make his vision out. Thereupon, Kant outlines the meaning of autonomy going hand in hand with what he claims to be freedom. Although Sartre is likely to denote the authorship of a man in what he/she does, Kant is driven by giving some contrast to justify morality and freedom. Thus, he points out morality as a contradiction between duty and inclination and freedom as a controversy between autonomy and heteronomy (Sandel 117). The latter is an opposition to being autonomous, as might be seen. In this vein, Kantian philosophy states that freedom and justice go hand in hand. That is, a person subject to the law is one to accept freedom in its core values. Ostensibly, such evaluation of freedom goes apart with Sartre’s understanding thereof. In fact, Kant’s philosophic treatment of people’s actions can be simply narrowed down to his well-known categorical imperative which is all about mutuality in actions people commit toward one another. Kant’s claims are possible through his close attention to living within the society and complying with the rules and norms of social life. His moral position touches upon the “intelligible” realm when he remarks: “…we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will together with its consequence - morality” (Sandel 128). Membership comes first as a prerequisite of sharing similar ideals and values between individuals. Societal constraints like the law and its execution serve to strike a balance within the society leading toward freedom. In the European tradition, it is all about the democracy as a weighed sum of people’s wants and needs so that to make all of them free and autonomous as well. When Sartre is quite straight-forward paying much attention to the freedom of action despite of the legal limits shared within the society, Kant just traces back to the basic rules of a civilized social life so that to construct the most applicable and unrepugnant concept of freedom. The difference is that Kant is more obliged to the norms of the society seeing a human being as a biosocial creature equally dependant on the natural and social forces. Kant makes a great attempt to underline the significance of reason first of all. Without it, human beings are incapable of right decisions and actions, as their morale may take a bad side. Above all, freedom in Kantian philosophy is well dependant on morality (Sandel 118). In other words, one concept cannot exist without another. In sum, freedom is definitely called so when it has much to do with morality. Conversely, Sartre’s notion of freedom is a result of a man’s consciousness being unable to adequately analyze the reality. That is to say, it can be suggested in the following way: “Sartre claims to have made the surprising discovery that something very much like a disconnection between consciousness and the rest of reality is the source of spontaneity, and when that spontaneity breaks through, the terrifying depth of our freedom is revealed” (Palmer 237). Certainly, such a development is in many cases wrong, since a man may simply run into inhuman or asocial delinquent behavior believing that it makes him/her really free. Thus, demanding notions by Sartre are freedom and freewill behavior. By contrast, demanding notions by Kant are freedom and morality. Definitely, both philosophers were driven in close connection to the philosophic trends they followed. However, it goes without saying that, today, it is vital to nurture morality among the individuals so as to make sure the world will never collide in wars and violence. It is the notion of freedom one possesses that can make a shift in understanding where the world should go at the moment. Passive and active states of freedom are proposed by Sartre and Kant respectively. The former feels responsible for every passive action including suicide as the expression of real freedom. The latter seems obliged to a set of rules of morality which serve as a golden mean for individuals not to take part in wrongdoing. The majority of sound-minded people would agree with Kant’s explanation of freedom, since it makes everyone confident and sure that they and their relatives and children will live in a morality-oriented society, but not the one where spontaneous inner forces let people choose what to do even though it may hurt or injure somebody. What is more, Kantian concept of freedom does not exclude the features of obligations. It is all about that individuals become free once they comply with or become subject to the standpoints of the moral law (Sandel 126). Again, this notion is full of sense and conformity. The only thing is that Sartre was driven by the vortex of ideas on absurdity of living before and after the World War II whereas Kant did not encounter such a collapse of morality and humane. To conclude, looking at the universal aspects of morale and rationality, Kantian “freedom” is more cogent to get it and further put in action. Morality is a precursor of a variety of virtues supporting a satisfactory life of human beings. Thus, when thinking of freedom as a result of being subject to morality, one is on the right track toward justifying good and peaceful life. Once again, Sartre seeks to denote that freedom disregards rational thinking and weighing all pros and cons (Palmer 283). On the other side, Kant strictly highlights the need of rationality in complying with the norms of moral law as a prerequisite to acquiring freedom. It is not a difficult formula to remind it. Needless to say, morality and sound-mindedness are to be widely prioritized, even though some outstanding philosophers give opposite justifications on the importance of acting morally correct. Hence, Kant’s philosophical thought on freedom is more cogent. Works Cited Palmer, Donald. Does The Center Hold?: An Introduction to Western Philosophy. 5. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. Read More