The Ethics of Ambiguity, by Simone de Beauvoir

        de Beauvoir tries to land the great existential problem introduced by Kant, Nietzsche, and especially her mentor Sartre: if there is no god, no plan, no universal morality, no infinite, then how do we make ethical decisions in a finite existence? Do “ethics” even make sense in that light? de Beauvoir grounds her thought in the ultimate “value” of individual freedom, but always tempered and conditioned by the intertwining of relationships between free individuals. 

       There is lots that is very important and good here, even for those of us who do believe in God and a divine plan/personality to which we may conform. “We repudiate all idealisms, mysticisms, etcetera which prefer Form to man himself.” I suspect Jesus would agree. Each person is to be treated not as a means, but as an end, and each scenario must be exhaustively examined in the ambiguous light of freedom to determine what is right and what is wrong. It is a type of situational ethics, guided by certain pre-determined “values.” And it is largely how people do make decisions now, or at least how we all like to imagine we make decisions (I think most people are far more conditioned than free). 

        But the issue remains: how did we come to these pre-determined “values”? Personally derived “values” which are based upon internal integrity are meant to replace God’s commandments or any kind of externally imposed morality. But why should we trust these values? And have not certain values already been assumed as "good" by most proponents of this way of thinking? Why should the freedom of individuals matter so much, if the thought just springs from our own will? Why should we even expect "good will"? What could "good" even mean in this worldview? I don’t believe she has overcome the essential issue of the source of “goodness” outside of God. de Beauvoir uses the word “must” a lot, but I do not think she has created any foundation for its use. 

        However, her method does have a lot to recommend it. She reckons with reality, with the demands of love and conscience, and rejects any escape into Hegelian infinities (though she admits they are comforting). And she rightly points to the importance of a revolutionary subjectivity in faith, politics, and art which gets subsumed under the “seriousness” of objective, systematised norms and rules. Once again, I think Jesus would say Amen.