Robert Purgert

Keith Fennen
PHL 105 A
May 8, 2013
Humans: Free of Shackles of Nature
The most insightful picture of human nature that was presented this semester was Sartres
argument against the existence of human nature. Sartres argument is founded upon the idea that
since there is no God, there is no moral code to follow, and man is condemned to be free
meaning that there is truly no one path that is better than another. One thinker who would
disagree with Sartre would be Thomas Aquinas, who would contend that God has biologically
ordered all for the same end an eternal life and everyone is naturally inclined to perform the
actions to reach that end; in other words, human nature exists. While Sartre would agree that
humans do have similar biological tendencies, he would first argue they developed through
evolution, and he would contend that human cultural ideas such as sexuality, politics, and
societal living are created strictly by humans and each of these ideas is assigned value through
individual choice. Sartres argument against human nature is the most convincing because of its
foundation in choice, which exists without a doubt, and its ability to refute the opposing view of
Aquinas using the evidence that humans are not all inclined to make the same choices. Sartres
argument is a relevant and compelling one because it opens up a whole new realm of human
potential, casting aside a template of expectations of what path a person should take, and
allowing an individual to make his or her own way. Without a list to check off before death, or
a book of rules to live ones life by, humans can be liberated beings with no restrictions on
creation and execution of ideas. In this paper, I will explain the logic of Sartres philosophy with
regards to human nature and morality, why his view is advantageous, and further develop
Aquinas counter argument and Sartres rebuttal.

Sartres philosophy begins with the choice to believe that God does not exist, which leads
to the belief that There is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it
(Existentialism and Humanism, 188). This means that man does not exist for a specific purpose,
and he is able to define himself with every action that he takes. This places a responsibility on
man, because: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself (188). This means that a
person cannot claim humanitys accomplishments as their own and slack off in their own life,
they must work to create their own personal value in the world. Each mans shortcomings are his
own, and each mans accomplishments are his own. As Sartre says, Without any support or help
whatever, man is condemned at every instant to invent man (189). Thus, people must ask
themselves is the way their style of living was could be carried out by everyone What if
everyone did so? (189) and must regulate their actions accordingly. It is in this way that Sartre
shows there is still responsibility that exists in existentialism, and he does not advocate for pure
chaos.
The absence of human nature and the belief that choices define man is valuable because it
rattles people from the comfort following the leader and going with the flow, and challenges
them to make conscious choices about what they believe which leads to meaningful actions.
Sartre thinks that all too often people dont recognize the choices that they make in life; they
simply follow orders and keep their head down, letting go of their individuality to feel like part
of a herd. For example, some followers of Catholicism base their lives around following the Ten
Commandments, never asking why God asks them to do these things, and maybe even never
asking why they believe in God. They just want to follow the rules, show up in church on
Sundays, keep their heads down, and hope that God lets them slip by into heaven with everyone
else. With this attitude, people are doomed to a life of mediocrity because they are simply trying

to get by in life, rather than trying to better themselves and society. The first step to breaking the
mold is for people to become aware of their choices, no matter what they are: To say it matters
not what you choose is not correct. In one sense, choice is possible, but what is not possible is
not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice
(200). Once people realize that they have choices, they begin to understand that they can choose
to take their life in any direction that they see fit. This is where the potential for human progress
comes in. People will have a whole new level of motivation to carry out their actions, because
they will be driven to define themselves how they want. With increased levels of motivation,
there will be an increase in the generation of new ideas to explore and expand upon. Also, it is
important to remember that each person will be trying to live in a way that would be viable even
if everyone in society lived the same way. Thus, each person will be striving to live a life in
which all of society would have the best possible life.
In opposition to Sartre, Aquinas argues for the existence of human nature because of the
evidence that is presented in what he calls the natural law, and also because he believes that all
humans are ordered toward the same end. Natural law is something that humans are inclined to
follow; they are truths that are apparent in all people through the use of reason. One example is
the idea that murder is wrong, which is a constant in almost all human societies. For Aquinas,
this shows that all humans have similar inclinations, which are all laid out by natural law.
Aquinas believes that we are all inclined toward the same supernatural end because of the
evidence that is revealed in divine law. He says: The natural law partakes of the eternal law in
proportion to the capacity of human nature. But human beings need to be directed in a higher
way to their ultimate supernatural end. And so God gives an additional law (divine law) that
partakes of the eternal law in a higher way (Treatise on Law, 13). Natural law is that which can

be discovered through reason, and divine law is that which God reveals to us through sources
like prophets and the bible. Sartre, however, would say that these laws do not support the
existence of human nature, because there is evidence that they are created by humans and not
universally true. The evidence lies in the fact that not all people follow what Aquinas lays out in
natural law, and also because not everyone believes them. Aquinas assumes natural law to be
universal based on what he has experienced, and even though everyone around him thinks the
same way, there are sure to be others somewhere on earth that are inclined in a different way
such as followers of other religions. Thus, Aquinas natural laws were created so that humans
could feel comfort and understanding, and would not have to deal with abandonment or anguish.
Another argument would be that taking divine law to be true rests on the choice to believe that
God truly reached out in a special way to certain people. This is explained when Sartre talks
about The anguish of Abraham (Existentialism and Humanism, 189). When God
communicates with humans, there is a big choice to make as to whether the voice in someones
head is actually God, or if it is just a figment of ones imagination. There is no way to know this
for certain, and the most likely explanation seems to go back to the idea that divine law was
created by humans for their own benefit.
In conclusion, Sartres view holds value because of its potential for human betterment
through self-awareness and choice. The most important thing to be understood is that Sartres
view is not one devoid of responsibility, purpose, or hope. It calls humans to understand the
importance of their choices, and why they are doing what they are doing. In this sense
existentialism is optimistic, it is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by
confusing their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope (206).