The Relationship Between Existentialism and Ethics

Existentialism is a philosophy that focuses on individual freedom, choice, and responsibility. It rejects universal moral laws and emphasizes personal meaning. Ethics plays a crucial role in existentialist thought. Since there are no absolute moral truths, individuals must create their own values. This leads to deep questions about responsibility, authenticity, and moral choice.

Thinkers like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus explored how people should act in a world without predetermined rules. Existentialist ethics challenges traditional moral systems and forces individuals to confront the consequences of their actions. Understanding this relationship helps clarify the role of ethics in a world defined by freedom.

Defining Existentialism

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. It centers on the idea that human existence precedes any predefined essence or purpose. Unlike traditional philosophies that seek objective truths, existentialism emphasizes personal experience, freedom, and individual responsibility. It argues that people must define their own meaning in life through their choices and actions. This perspective challenges systems that impose external values, including religious doctrines and societal norms.

Several philosophers have shaped existentialist thought. Søren Kierkegaard is often called the father of existentialism, as he explored anxiety, faith, and individual subjectivity. Friedrich Nietzsche further developed existential themes, rejecting absolute morality and emphasizing the will to power. In the 20th century, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus refined existentialist ideas, particularly concerning freedom, authenticity, and moral responsibility. Each of these thinkers contributed unique perspectives, shaping existentialism as both a philosophical and ethical inquiry.

At its core, existentialism promotes several key principles. First, existence precedes essence, meaning that individuals are not born with a fixed purpose. Instead, they must create their own identity through choices. Second, personal freedom is central, but with it comes responsibility for one’s actions. Third, life is often absurd, lacking inherent meaning, which requires individuals to confront uncertainty without relying on absolute truths. Lastly, authenticity is essential—living in accordance with one’s true self rather than conforming to external pressures. These ideas form the foundation of existentialist thought and its approach to ethics.

The Nature of Ethics

Ethics is the study of morality, focusing on what is right and wrong. It examines human behavior, guiding principles, and the reasons behind moral choices. Unlike existentialism, which emphasizes individual freedom, ethics often seeks universal standards for right action. Philosophers have long debated whether morality is absolute or shaped by culture and personal beliefs. Some argue that ethics is based on reason, while others see it as a social construct. Despite these differences, ethics remains central to discussions about responsibility, justice, and human values.

Different Ethical Frameworks:

Deontology – Moral rules and duties determine right action, regardless of consequences (Immanuel Kant).
Utilitarianism – The best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill).
Virtue Ethics – Morality is based on character and virtues like courage and honesty (Aristotle).
Existentialist Ethics – Morality is subjective, based on personal responsibility and authenticity (Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir).
Divine Command Theory – Morality is determined by religious principles and divine authority.
Contractarianism – Moral rules are based on social agreements and mutual benefit (Thomas Hobbes, John Rawls).
Moral Relativism – Right and wrong depend on cultural and individual perspectives.

Existentialism’s Perspective on Ethics

Freedom and Responsibility

Existentialism asserts that human beings are radically free to make their own choices. Unlike traditional ethical frameworks that rely on objective moral laws, existentialist ethics is rooted in individual responsibility. Jean-Paul Sartre argued that because there is no predefined human essence, each person must define their own values through action. This freedom is absolute, but it also comes with weighty consequences. Every decision carries moral significance because it shapes both the individual and the world.

With freedom comes responsibility. Sartre introduced the concept of “bad faith,” where people deceive themselves to escape responsibility for their choices. For example, blaming external factors—society, fate, or religion—for one’s actions is a denial of true freedom. In contrast, living authentically means accepting full responsibility, even in morally ambiguous situations. This existentialist view challenges traditional ethical systems that rely on absolute rules, placing moral responsibility squarely on the individual.

Authenticity and Individual Choice

Authenticity is a central theme in existentialist ethics. To be authentic means to act in accordance with one’s true self rather than conforming to external pressures. Simone de Beauvoir explored this idea in The Ethics of Ambiguity, arguing that individuals must create their own values while acknowledging the complexities of human relationships. Authenticity requires self-awareness and the courage to make choices that align with personal convictions, even when they go against societal norms.

However, existentialists recognize the difficulty of authentic living. Society imposes expectations, traditions, and moral codes that often conflict with individual freedom. Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, emphasized that humans must confront the absurdity of existence and choose their own path despite its lack of inherent meaning. This idea extends to ethics—individuals must take ownership of their moral decisions rather than relying on external authorities. In existentialist thought, true morality arises not from obedience to rules but from genuine personal commitment to one’s chosen values.

Existentialist Thinkers on Ethics

Jean-Paul Sartre’s Views

Jean-Paul Sartre believed that ethics must be grounded in human freedom. Since there are no objective moral values, individuals must create their own moral code through conscious choice. In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre argued that “existence precedes essence,” meaning people define their own nature through actions. He saw moral responsibility as inescapable—every choice reflects not only personal values but also an image of what one believes humanity should be. This idea places a heavy ethical burden on individuals, as every action contributes to shaping the world.

Sartre also introduced the concept of “bad faith,” a form of self-deception where individuals deny their own freedom to avoid responsibility. In an ethical sense, bad faith allows people to justify immoral behavior by blaming societal norms, authority figures, or fate. Authenticity, on the other hand, requires embracing personal responsibility without excuses. While Sartre rejected universal moral laws, he maintained that people should act with integrity, choosing values that respect both personal freedom and the freedom of others.

Simone de Beauvoir’s Ethical Considerations

Simone de Beauvoir extended existentialist ethics by focusing on the complexities of human relationships. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, she argued that ethical living requires recognizing both personal freedom and the connections between all people. Unlike Sartre, who primarily focused on individual choice, Beauvoir emphasized the need to consider how personal actions impact others. She believed that true morality involves not only asserting one’s own freedom but also working to ensure the freedom of others.

Beauvoir also explored the ethical dilemmas faced by marginalized groups. In The Second Sex, she examined how societal structures limit women’s freedom and argued that oppression is a moral issue. She believed that ethical responsibility extends beyond personal authenticity—it also requires confronting injustice. For Beauvoir, existentialist ethics is not just about individual choice but about actively resisting forces that restrict human freedom. This perspective makes her ethical philosophy one of engagement rather than mere self-definition.

Albert Camus and the Absurd

Albert Camus approached ethics from the perspective of the absurd. In The Myth of Sisyphus, he described life as inherently meaningless, yet argued that individuals must still find a way to live with dignity. Unlike Sartre and Beauvoir, Camus was skeptical of constructing moral systems based on personal freedom. Instead, he believed that ethical living involves embracing the absurd and choosing to act in ways that affirm life, even without ultimate meaning. His concept of “revolt” suggests that moral action is about defying despair and engaging with the world despite its lack of inherent purpose.

Camus also explored ethical questions in The Plague, where he examined how people respond to suffering and moral duty in times of crisis. He argued that morality should be based on solidarity and compassion rather than abstract principles. While Camus rejected traditional moral absolutes, he saw ethics as a lived practice—choosing to act with integrity and resisting indifference. His existentialist ethics challenges the idea that meaninglessness leads to nihilism, instead advocating for a morality based on human connection and perseverance.

The Conflict Between Existentialism and Traditional Ethics

#1. Core Philosophical Differences

Existentialism and traditional ethics differ in their fundamental approach to morality. Traditional ethical theories, such as deontology and utilitarianism, seek universal moral laws that apply to all individuals. They assume that right and wrong can be determined based on objective principles, reason, or consequences. In contrast, existentialism rejects absolute moral truths and argues that ethics is deeply personal. Each person must define their own values based on individual freedom and responsibility.

This difference leads to a fundamental tension. Traditional ethics relies on stable, external guidelines, while existentialism insists that morality is created through personal choice. This creates a challenge: if there are no fixed moral rules, how can individuals ensure their actions are just? Existentialist thinkers like Sartre and Beauvoir argue that ethical living is not about following rules but about making choices authentically and responsibly. This approach shifts the burden of morality from external authorities to the individual.

#2. Existence Precedes Essence

The existentialist principle that “existence precedes essence” conflicts with ethical systems that assume human nature has a predetermined moral structure. Religious and virtue-based ethics often assert that humans have a specific purpose or essence that dictates moral behavior. For example, Christian ethics teaches that morality is derived from God’s will, while Aristotelian ethics suggests that virtue is tied to fulfilling human potential.

Existentialism challenges this notion by arguing that people are not born with an inherent moral essence. Instead, individuals must define themselves through their actions. This means morality is not something discovered but something created. While this idea grants maximum freedom, it also removes the certainty that traditional ethical frameworks provide. Without a predefined essence, there is no universal guideline for what is good or bad—only the responsibility to make choices and live with their consequences.

#3. Subjectivity vs Objectivity in Morality

Traditional ethics often assumes that morality is objective and applies to all people equally. Philosophers like Kant and Mill sought universal moral rules that could be rationally justified and applied in any situation. Kant’s categorical imperative, for example, argues that ethical principles must be universally applicable, meaning that if an action is moral for one person, it must be moral for all.

Existentialism rejects this notion, arguing that morality is subjective and tied to personal experience. Sartre believed that each person must determine their own ethical values based on their lived reality. This does not mean morality is arbitrary, but rather that moral decisions must come from an authentic engagement with one’s situation. This perspective raises difficult questions: If morality is subjective, can any action be justified? How do we hold people accountable without universal standards? Existentialist ethics offers no easy answers but insists that moral responsibility lies in individual choice rather than imposed rules.

#4. Moral Responsibility

Existentialism places a heavy burden of moral responsibility on the individual. Without external guidelines, people must take full ownership of their actions. Sartre famously stated that individuals are “condemned to be free,” meaning that they cannot escape responsibility for their choices. Unlike traditional ethics, which provides clear rules, existentialist ethics forces individuals to navigate moral dilemmas without a predetermined framework.

This radical responsibility can be both liberating and overwhelming. It means that ethical failure cannot be blamed on fate, society, or divine will. Every decision reflects one’s character and values. Simone de Beauvoir expanded on this idea by arguing that true moral responsibility also involves recognizing how one’s actions impact the freedom of others. For existentialists, ethical living requires an ongoing commitment to self-awareness, authenticity, and accountability.

#5. The Absurd and Moral Duty

Albert Camus introduced the idea of the absurd, which challenges traditional views of moral duty. In a meaningless universe, is there any reason to act ethically? Traditional ethical theories often assume that morality has a purpose—either to fulfill divine will, promote social order, or achieve happiness. Camus rejected these justifications, arguing that life has no inherent meaning. Yet, instead of leading to nihilism, he proposed that individuals should embrace the absurd and commit to moral action despite the lack of ultimate purpose.

This raises an important question: If morality is not grounded in objective meaning, why should people act ethically? Camus suggested that ethical duty arises not from abstract principles but from human solidarity. In The Plague, he portrayed characters who choose to fight suffering not because of religious or philosophical beliefs but because of their shared humanity. This existentialist approach to ethics is rooted in lived experience rather than imposed moral laws.

#6. Freedom and Authority

Existentialism views authority with skepticism, especially when it dictates moral behavior. Traditional ethics often relies on external authorities, such as religious teachings, legal systems, or philosophical doctrines, to establish right and wrong. In contrast, existentialist thinkers argue that moral authority should come from within. Sartre, in particular, rejected the idea that people should follow ethical rules simply because they are imposed by society or tradition.

However, this rejection of external authority creates a moral challenge. Without an agreed-upon ethical structure, how do individuals navigate moral conflicts? If everyone creates their own morality, how can society function? Existentialist ethics does not provide easy answers but emphasizes that true morality comes from conscious, personal decision-making rather than blind obedience. Authentic moral action requires individuals to engage critically with ethical questions rather than rely on imposed rules.

#7. Ethical Implications of Nihilism

Nihilism, the belief that life and morality have no inherent meaning, presents a challenge to existentialist ethics. If there are no absolute moral truths, does anything matter? Some critics argue that existentialism leads to moral relativism or even ethical chaos. Without objective standards, how can we condemn injustice or uphold moral values?

Existentialists respond by differentiating between passive and active nihilism. Passive nihilism, associated with despair and inaction, leads to moral indifference. Active nihilism, however, recognizes the absence of inherent meaning but chooses to create values despite this. Camus’ idea of revolt—engaging with life in defiance of the absurd—suggests that ethical living is still possible even in a meaningless world. Sartre also rejected nihilism, insisting that freedom and responsibility demand ethical commitment. In existentialist thought, the absence of objective morality does not eliminate moral responsibility—it intensifies it.

#8. The Role of God and Religion

Many traditional ethical systems are rooted in religious beliefs. Divine command theory, for example, states that morality is based on God’s will. Existentialism challenges this idea by arguing that moral values must be created by individuals, not dictated by a higher power. Nietzsche’s famous declaration that “God is dead” symbolized the collapse of religious authority over morality. Without divine guidance, humans must define ethics for themselves.

However, this does not mean existentialism is entirely opposed to religion. Kierkegaard, an early existentialist, argued that faith must be a personal leap rather than a set of imposed moral rules. Some existentialists, like Paul Tillich, sought to reconcile existentialist thought with Christian ethics. Others, like Sartre and Camus, rejected religious morality altogether. Regardless of their stance on faith, existentialists agree that ethical responsibility ultimately rests with the individual, not with divine authority.

#9. Cultural and Historical Context

Traditional ethics often assumes that moral values are timeless and universal. Existentialism challenges this by emphasizing the influence of culture and history on moral beliefs. What is considered ethical in one era or society may not be seen the same way in another. Existentialists argue that morality is not static but shaped by individual and collective experiences.

This perspective raises important ethical questions. If morality is influenced by history and culture, can any moral judgment be truly objective? Can we condemn past moral practices by today’s standards? Existentialist ethics does not deny the importance of moral reflection but insists that ethical choices must be made in context rather than relying on rigid, universal laws. This approach highlights the need for ongoing ethical engagement rather than fixed moral rules.

#10. Ethical Dilemmas and Choice

Existentialist ethics is deeply concerned with moral dilemmas. Without absolute guidelines, individuals must make difficult choices without certainty. Sartre illustrated this in his famous example of a young man choosing between caring for his mother and joining the French Resistance. There was no universal moral rule that could determine the right choice—only personal responsibility in facing the decision.

This lack of absolute answers makes existentialist ethics challenging but also deeply human. Ethical living, in this view, is not about finding perfect solutions but about making choices with full awareness of their consequences. Authenticity, responsibility, and engagement with the world define existentialist morality. Rather than seeking moral certainty, existentialists argue that true ethical living lies in the willingness to choose and to accept responsibility for those choices.

Conclusion

Existentialism challenges traditional ethics by rejecting absolute moral laws and placing responsibility on the individual. It argues that morality is not dictated by external authorities but created through personal choice. This shift raises difficult questions about accountability, freedom, and the role of ethics in a world without inherent meaning. While existentialist ethics lacks universal rules, it demands authenticity and responsibility in moral decision-making. Instead of relying on predetermined guidelines, individuals must actively engage with ethical dilemmas. Though this approach is complex, it offers a deeply human perspective—one that embraces uncertainty while emphasizing the significance of personal and ethical responsibility.