A bit more…

So in class today we unpacked that reading. It seems Sartre is advocating absolute choice without moral attachment. When faced with a choice, doctrine helps us nothing since which doctrine to follow is a choice in the first place. He also contends that selecting a doctrine is a way to deceive ourselves into a sort of determinism. But here is the problem, how can we even tell that we have a choice to make unless we are informed in some way that a decision or action must be made.

So I can eat a salad or a hamburger. Sartre, I think, would say that suggesting that one choice is healthier than another choice is already making a choice about what things are valued to be healthy. Essentially each option should be weighted equally in Sartre's evaluation. My desire to honour certain convictions about what I deem to be healthy might actually be a self deception – bad faith.

But what tells me that there is a choice in the first place? What informs me that there is a problem that needs resolution? Unless some pre-existing compass can help me recognize that I have choice to make – I simply act without cause whatsoever.