Sartre, Ross, and McNaughton provide different perspectives on what might be a common issue. What are their views? How are they similar? How are they different?
Sartres view on virtue was that there was no moral principles that can provide guidance in a great many real life situations. The story of the young man torn between staying with his mother or joining the French forces is his favorite example. Later in our text he clarifies that; if the boy chooses to ask a priest who is resisting or collaborating; then the young man has actually made a choice. Sartre reiterates that a man is free to chose his own path by making his own invented choice at the moment. If you do not choose, it is still impossible not to make a choice. The famous saying comes to mind that states, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke). As a student, I understand that there have been evil forces in the world in the past, such as Hitler, or in recent years in Rwanda, where it appeared people have been slaughtered because men choose not to act in one case in Rwanda, but in the case of World War II, good people did act. At the moment of action or inaction the spirit of who these men were became clear. Deaf ears are guilty of making their bed with the killers when they do nothing.
Thus it is impossible for the young man not to take responsibility for his action or inaction. Caprice (sudden desire) has nothing to do with priori value determining that momentary choice, one that involves all of mankind. You are who you are at that moment by your own choices. He may choose without pre-established values , but nonetheless " it is still impossible for him not to take full responsibility for how he handles the this problem" (Timmons, 232). The example of art and ethics clarify how Sartre sees virtue. The common bond of creation and invention shows that we can not decide a priori what there is to be done. Going back to the example of the young man , a student of ethics sees that the young man torn between war and his mother has no ethical systems such as Kantian to guide him, rather he creates who he is at the moment. Just as the final sculpture or painting appears only after the artists final stroke or press of his fingers. Sartre states "We define man only in relationship to involvement.It is therefore absurd to charge us with arbitrariness of choice " (Timmons p. 232).
Sartre was similar to both Ross and McNaughton in the belief that there was no one single moral principle that could effectively guide moral thinking and decision making. Sartre was different to both of them in the view that you had no choice, for if you did nothing that is also a choice by itself. Sartres' Theory manages to focus on the individual taking action and accepting responsibility for their choices, rather than blaming it on God or man or following the abstract , "hypocrisy, inauthenticity, and cowardice of living for others (social self) rather than for ones "authentic self..." (Soccio, 2001, p. 442).
For Satre, only you yourself can make your path in life, His answer to the young man whom was debating on staying with his mother or going to England to the war was "You're free, choose, that is, invent." No general ethics can show you what is to be done;there are no omens in this world" (Timmons P. 231). In Sartre's "No Exit", fate takes a hand in changing the direction of the character Garcin's life forever. Garcin fights for thirty years in his attempt to stop wars throughout his country, by welding his preferred weapon of chose, the pen."...I didn't give a damn for wealth or love. I aimed at being a real man..."(Sartre 43). Garcin dreams of being a hero tragically ended before he could do his deeds like Oedipus had done. The dream of establishing himself as a man of action and integrity are taken from him by his execution before they can be established in the books of history."...I was a man of action once...oh, if only I could be with them again, for just one day..."(Sartre 39). . He is left with trying to prove to himself, that his choices on earth were not because he was a coward. Through his free will the character, Garcin must attempt to change the opinions of his fellow tormentors, and thus vindicate himself.
I like the idea of Sartre that "I can always choose, but I ought to know that If I do not choose, I am still choosing" (Timmons, p. 232). To Sartre, we are like an artist who creates a painting out of priori , yet the painting he makes depends on what priori he chooses to use or exclude. Thus there are no priori aesthetic values, but values that appear after the unity between what the artist intended and what resulted from his actions. Thus the example of the young man who was debating on rather to leave his mother for war was creating his own priori through choosing to go or not to go. A cartoon on one website shows a man at a path that can go either left or right. One sign points in a direction that says morally right , while the other sign points in the opposite direction that says legally right. In big letters above the man's head it reads Inevitable intersection on the road to life. Finally, the existentialist turn views facts and logic as radically under-determining the rationality of choices, a short-coming that can only be made up for by adopting some thoroughly subjective criteria, usually some kind of authenticity, or trueness to oneself (Kierkegaard, [1843]; Sartre, 1992).
Ross view on virtue was that there was no single moral principle that can be used to derive more specific moral obligations. Instead he states that there "are a plurality of irreducible moral rules that are basic in moral thought" (Timmons p. 233). These rules are known to Ross as Prima facie duties-such as keeping promises or avoiding injuries to others-which can be in conflict-so the final decision must be based on which Prima facie is weightiest, and thereby should be obeyed. Thus Ross felt the truth of moral rules could be grasped through intuition, similar to grasping mathematics " (Timmons p. 233). Ross felt that certain features of actions and situations are always relevant to the moral assessment of actions.
Ross was similar to Sartre in the belief that when man often makes a choice it is based on some past direction. In the case of the young man described by Sartre, if the young man chooses a priest or collaborator then it is a choice by reason of the type of individual that priest or collaborator represents. Ross like Sartre sees a common thread where one choice is not always right.
Ross' view is different with Sartre in that while a promise of marriage may be a prima facie duty to some, marriage to Sartre is an organized situation where a persons final choice is impossible not to be made, for doing nothing is still a choice. If the promises to remain faithful in marriage is a weight of fidelity in a prima facie, then why would adulterer believe in the plurality of irreducible moral rules? Rather to an adulterer he already has made a choice to commit the act by debating the question. Thus where Ross felt there was a plurality of moral rules, Sartre felt that there was no set of moral rules to follow in a great many situations.
McNaughton's view on virtue was that "We must judge each moral situation individually without the secure guidance of moral principles" (Timmons, p. 238). Making moral judgments about specific cases requires that we carefully examine the details of the situation , and assess the various morally relevant features of that situation in deciding what is right and wrong to do.
McNaughton was similar to Sartre in that each choice was to be made on its particular situation. Thus, like a piece of art, one cannot apply the same features or actions in each case. Furthermore, McNaughton similar to Sartre felt "that at best moral principle are at best a useless, and at worst a hindrance, in trying to find the right action" (Timmons, p. 238). Sartre reciprocated a similar view by stating " a man is free to chose his own path by making his own invented choice at the moment. If you do not choose, it is still impossible not to make a choice.
McNaughton was different to Sartre in that to Sartre felt that their was no moral principles that can provide guidance in a great many real life situations. To Sartre the common bond of creation and invention shows that we can not decide a priori what there is to be done. Sartre reiterates that a man is free to chose his own path by making his own invented choice at the moment. If you do not choose, it is still impossible not to make a choice.
Works Cited
Soccio J. Douglas "Archetypes Of Wisdom" 2001 Published Wadsworth-Thomas Learning
Timmons Mark "Conduct And Character" 2006
Tramel Peter "Moral Epistemology" received April 20, 2007 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/mor-epis.htm>
Villanova.edu "Ethical Dilemmas:Dealing With Value" received April 20,2007
<http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/M PA%208300/theories/dilemmas.html>