Reflection Prompt

Freedom and the Other

On de Beauvoir's claim that genuine freedom requires willing the freedom of others

The pivot on which The Ethics of Ambiguity turns is a single claim: "to will oneself free is also to will others free." De Beauvoir does not present this as a moral commandment. She presents it as a structural consequence of what freedom actually is. If she is right, then an existentialist ethics that begins from the premise that there are no fixed values is not empty after all; it carries genuine moral obligations built into the very structure of freedom. If she is wrong, the attempt to construct ethics from freedom alone fails, and we are left where Nietzsche left us.

This reflection asks you to take a position on whether the argument succeeds.

The prompt

Does de Beauvoir's argument that genuine freedom requires willing the freedom of others actually succeed? Take a position and defend it.

your reflection should:

  1. State your position clearly. Does the argument work? Your first paragraph should make your answer plain and give the reader a sense of why.
  2. Reconstruct the argument you are evaluating. Before you can assess the argument, you need to state it precisely. What exactly is de Beauvoir claiming, and what are the steps that get her from "I am free" to "I must will others' freedom"? The lecture pages and the text give you what you need, but put it in your own words. A good reconstruction will identify the key premise that the argument depends on.
  3. Give your evaluation with a specific reason. If you think the argument succeeds: explain what makes the key move valid and why the conclusion genuinely follows from existentialist premises rather than being smuggled in from outside. If you think it fails: identify exactly where the argument breaks down. Is there a gap between "my freedom depends on some others being free in some respects" and "I am obligated to will the freedom of all others"? Or does the argument rest on a premise about the nature of freedom that is not established? Or something else?
  4. Address the strongest objection to your position. If you defend the argument: acknowledge the most serious challenge to it and explain why it does not succeed. If you reject it: acknowledge that de Beauvoir might respond to your objection, and explain why that response is not sufficient.

Connecting to the course

This is the last reflection in the course, and it sits at the end of a six-unit argument. You are encouraged, but not required, to bring in the other thinkers. De Beauvoir knows she is responding to a tradition. Her argument is partly a response to Nietzsche's conclusion that without fixed foundations, ethics collapses. It is also in dialogue with Kant, whose categorical imperative tried to derive obligations to others from the structure of rationality. If you think de Beauvoir's argument succeeds where Kant's fails, or fails where Nietzsche's critique succeeds, say so and say why.

As you write, pin down the specific step in the argument you are endorsing or rejecting. Ask whether your disagreement with de Beauvoir is about a factual premise, about a logical step, or about the underlying concept of freedom itself, because those are different disagreements and require different responses.

Your Reflection

This is a thinking space — your response is not saved or submitted. Copy your work if you want to keep it.