THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM IN JEAN-PAUL SARTRE:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

BY

VICTOR CHUKWUEMEKA OGUGUA

REG. NO: NAU/2009086028F

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ARTS
NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA.

JULY, 2012.

THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM IN JEAN-PAUL SARTRE:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

BY

VICTOR CHUKWUEMEKA OGUGUA

REG. NO: NAU/2009086028F
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ARTS
NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA.

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ARTS
NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS (M.A.) DEGREE IN
PHILOSOPHY

SUPERVISOR
PROFESSOR MADUABUCHI. DUKOR.

JULY, 2012.
ii

CERTIFICATION
Victor Chukwuemeka Ogugua, NAU/2009086028F a student of the
Department of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts Nnamdi Azikiwe
University, Awka, has satisfactorily completed the requirements for
course and research works, for the Degree of Master of arts (M.A.) in
Philosophy.

---------------------------------PROF. MADUABUCHI DUKOR

SUPERVISOR

---------------------------------PROF. HARRIS ODIMEGWU

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank God for his mercies upon my life for making this project a
success.
I wish to show a great deal of appreciation to Prof. Harris
Odimegwu, the Head of Department, Prof. Maduabuchi Dukor, my
supervisor, Prof. Obi Oguejiofor, Rev. Dr. C. Mbaegbu, Dr. Ifechi, Dr.
Chris Abakare and Mr. Fidelis Aghamelu.

My profound gratitude goes to my lovely parents Mr. and Mrs.

Stanislaus Ogugua, my cherished siblings, Godwin, Stella, Peter,
Emmanuel and Paschaline

Finally, I acknowledge the various scholars whose works formed

part of my sources.

iv

DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Stanlislaus Ogugua and
to my lovely brothers and sisters.

Title Page -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
-

Approval Page

ii

Certification

iii

Acknowledgements

iv

Dedication -

vi

Table of Contents

vii

Abstract

ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background of Study

1.2

Statement of Problem -

1.3

Purpose of Study

1.4

Scope of Study -

1.5

Significance of Study -

1.6

Methodology

--

1.7

Definition of Terms

12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

14

REFERENCES -

32

REFERENCES -

vi

CHAPTER THREE: GENERAL NOTION OF FREEDOM -

34

3.1 What is Freedom -

34

3.2 Kinds of Freedom -

39

3.3 Limitations of Freedom -

47

REFERENCES -

52

CHAPTER FOUR: SARTRES CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

4.1 Freedom as Absolute

54

4.2 Freedom and Choice

58

4.3 Freedom and Responsibility

60

4.4 Freedom and God

64

4.5 Being -

67

REFERENCES -

71

CHAPTER FIVE: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Evaluation

73

5.2 Conclusion -

80

REFERENCES -

85

BIBLIOGRAPHY

86

vii

ABSTRACT
Freedom has been construed as the absence of coercion and restraint
imposed by others (that is freedom from).Freedom is also construed as
liberty to engage in spheres of activities (that is freedom to).This
implies that the individual has the right to choose and make decisions
without any interference or restraint. The paradox of freedom is that its
existence has become a subject of debate and controversy. For some
scholars, freedom presupposes free will. For Jean-Paul Sartre, freedom
is absolute. Recent debates in Social and Political philosophy regarding
determinism, the extent of ones freedom, have, in some ways,
contradicted the idea of absolute freedom in Jean-Paul Sartres notion of
freedom. This notion of freedom in Sartre is an exaggeration of human
freedom which leads to nihilism in contemporary thought and behavior.
Spurred by Sartres claim on absolute freedom, this paper, through a
critical analysis, concludes that absolute freedom is not possible based
on the complexities in human nature which are climatic; genetic
hereditary of instincts and passions like love and hate; physiological,
psychological, sociological and spiritual factors.

viii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Freedom is a very enigmatic and perplexing concept. According to
Kant, the three great problems of philosophy are God, freedom and
immortality1. Among these, is the freedom of the will. It is one of the
perennial problems in philosophy and it is the one most accessible to
reason.
The problem of freedom is as old as man himself. It has been
debated by various scholars of different epochs. Human nature is
encompassed by many complexities, which are climatic; genetic
hereditary of instincts; passions like love and hate; physiological,
psychological, sociological and spiritual factors. These have led to the
distortion of the true understanding of the reality of the human nature.
Many attempts to proffer possible solutions to the effects of these
complexities have resulted to untold difficulties. This is true with the
problem of freedom and free will in philosophy

From the earliest philosophers to present day thinkers, one question

continues to cause a serious problem, that is:

Is man free to mould his own destiny, or is he

a mere straw in the wind of fate? Do our
ideas, hopes, acts and wills mean anything in
the universe? Is it true as some hold that we
come from the unknown, and are buffeted
around by forces of which we have no control,
and at last return to the unknown?2
Our common sense or intuition tells us that we constantly face choices or
that we make mistakes or that we are undecided about some certain
matters. To make a choice implies that the will is free to move in different
directions. The act of taking time to think of a course of action implies that
one is situated in a special condition of freedom. Richard Popkin states
that:

In most of our judgment about people, we

assume that, in some sense, they choose
freely to do what they did or to believe what
they do; we punish, condemn, or blame
individuals for making certain choices and
decisions, and insist that they ought to have
done something else, and if they had, they
would then be deserving of rewards and
praises.3
Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent and renowned existentialist is not left out in
this debate about human freedom. For him, man is condemned to be
free.4 For some scholars, what distinguished man from other beings is

consciousness, but this is not true for him, he prefers to say that what
distinguishes man from other beings is freedom.
In his autobiography, titled The words, Sartre says he hated his
childhood because of the suffocating atmosphere of his grandparents
household. Tutored at home, he was isolated and deprived of association
with children of his own age. Sartres only friends were books that filled
his grand fathers study. I began my life Sartre says, as I shall no doubt
end it amidst books. In his philosophy, Sartre described the way we live
out our lives by choosing projects in an attempt to define who we are. He
says about himself, I keep creating myself; I am the giver and the gift.
As the title of his autobiography suggests, Sartre decided his lifes project
would revolve around words.

Sartre argued that whenever we are able to recognize our freedom,

we have a sense of anguish. As a result of this fact, there is the tendency
to raise questions as to know how free we are in actual fact. We then
begin to look into some of those things that we exercise our freedom in
doing and in choosing. If it is a fact that we are free in making choices
does it make any sense for us to choose one thing and leave the other?

Sartre does not restrict himself to inquiry into freedom for man, at
the expense of the circumstance such as environment, birth and other
conceivable

constraints,

but

he

goes

further

to

evaluate

the

responsibilities of freedom. The freedom of man goes with responsibilities

and this fact is unassailable. Hence man being condemned to be free
carries the weight of the whole on his shoulders; he is responsible for the
world and for himself as a way of being.

Freedom constitutes the essence of man and not vice versa;

freedom comes first before other make-ups of man. He overcame the
traditional teachings on man, on freedom as the essence rather than as
an aspect of man. The use of ones freedom is mans first character. All
personalities of man are as a result of his freedom. The constitutive
fundaments of man are his freedom. This freedom is not bound by any
moral law; the only norm is freedom itself. We are not free not to be free.
According to Iroegbu, in analyzing Sartres concept of freedom, he states
that, we are not free to cease being free5. According to J.J. Rousseau,
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.6 It should be noted
that Rousseau upheld the freedom of man but argues that there are many
things about human nature that we are not free to choose. According to
the determinists, you did not choose to be born, to have brown eyes, to
4

be six feet tall, to have blond hair, or even to have a particular disease7.
It is assumed that all these have been determined genetically. It is equally
to be noted that human freedom has limitations. We are free to do what
we are capable of doing, that is; mans natural capacity determines mans
freedom, I cannot, for example, decide to walk with my head or write this
note with my right leg.8 In short, my freedom is limited within the ambit of
my natural powers. In view of all these, the metaphysical problem free
will seems to revolve around determining how far a belief in human
freedom is consistent with our experience, our views about human nature.
It is against this backdrop that this work will center on the analysis of this
concept of freedom as posited by Sartre. The work will also examine the
relationship of freedom to human nature and more so, mediate between
Sartres Absolute freedom and the Limited freedom of J.J. Rousseau.
This work intends to mediate between two extreme positions: that
freedom suggests responsibility and that the greater the freedom, the
greater the duties. It must be made clear that if man is assumed to
possess absolute freedom as Sartre says, then it goes with many
implications.

1.2 Statement of Problem

The most intractable and certainly the most humanly important
philosophical problem connected with causation is that of human
freedom. The subject has been debated mainly in connection with ethics
and especially with the question of responsibility for our actions. Yet this
seems difficult to reconcile with something else that we are also strongly
inclined to believe namely : (i) that everything is caused or determined or
that (ii) we are not responsible for our actions. Sartre, more than other
philosophers, argued for freedom so much so that he considered human
beings as freedom incarnate. He said there is no determinism, man
is free, and man is freedom.9
Therefore, can this form of freedom posited by Sartre be
actualized? And to what extent is he correct to say that man is absolutely
free?

1.3 Purpose of Study

This work attempts to make a critical analysis of Sartres concept of
human freedom. It is a fact that Sartres love for freedom made him to
make certain generalization on freedom, especially as it affects man. I
intend to expose such exaggerations that Sartre made.

In a more related development, a critical analysis will be undertaken to

expose the fact that absolute freedom is not tenable. On this note, a
comparative analysis will be made between Sartres work and that of
other scholars to enable us arrive at a conclusion.

1.4 Significance of Study

The importance of this work is that it will present a detailed analysis
of the whole concept of freedom on human nature in Sartres philosophy.
Freedom will be treated extensively in respect with other issues in
Sartres work; most of these related issues will be discussed. Effort will be
made in this work to examine and clarify all-important issues bordering on
the freedom of human nature.

This work exposes the extremeness of Sartres notion on absolute

freedom and its implications. More so, it will help to appreciate properly
the place and the role of freedom in human existence.

1.5 Scope of Study

This work is designed to serve the purpose of analyzing the whole
concept of freedom in the understanding of Jean-Paul Sartres philosophy
and as exposed in his major works: Being and Nothingness (1957) and
Existentialism and Humanism (1948). In these works he contends that
7

Man is condemned to be free, this means that no limit to mans freedom

can be found except freedom itself10. According to him, there is no
determinism, man is free, man is freedom,11.

1.6 Methodology
In every research work, the issue of method is quite indispensable
for any effective and efficient outcome. Therefore, this academic work will
be limited only to purely library work. Meanwhile, in order to be
philosophical, the approach will incorporate a critical analysis. This will
enable us to bring to light Jean-Paul Sartres concept of freedom that
man is condemned to be free; this means that there is no limit to
mans freedom except freedom itself12. Freedom is not merely a quality
that man possesses; instead, it is the essence of man. That which defined
him does not exist in order to be free subsequently but he has freedom as
his foundation.
The work will be structured into five chapters. Chapter one of this
work will center on the introduction which will give us an insight into what
the whole work is, the problems, the purpose of this work or aim of this
research, the key concepts therein and various notions on the subject
matter shall also be explicated. Chapter two will analyze the philosophical
view of some scholars on Sartres concept of freedom, in order to have a
8

proper frame of mind. Chapter three explains the general notion of

freedom while chapter four will discuss the concept of freedom by Sartre.
The last chapter will, in a substantial manner, critically evaluate J.P
Sartres notion of freedom and then the conclusion will follow.

1.7 Definition of Terms

Freedom
Freedom is defined by the Merriam- Webster Dictionary as 1: The
quality or state of being free as a; the absence of necessity, coercion, or
constraint in choice or action b; liberation from slavery or restrained from
the power of another C; the quality or state of being exempted or
released, usually from something onerous (freedom from care) d; ease,
facility (spoke the language with freedom) e; the quality of being frank,
open or outspoken (answered with freedom) f; improper familiarity g;
boldness of conception or execution h; unrestricted use. 2: a; a political
right b; franchise, privilege13.
Isaiah Berlin, in his seminar paper titled Two Concepts of Liberty14
in 1958, notes that the term liberty has been used in many different
senses. He calls these the negative and the positive concepts. Berlin
outlines the history of negative and positive conceptions, their

philosophical presuppositions and their implications in terms of political

practice.
Positive freedom is the freedom to say and do as we please in
public, such as the freedom of speech. It is the freedom to set up and run
businesses, the freedom to choose government officials and the freedom
to travel, anywhere one wants. Ironically enough, there is no place that
has total, positive freedom. Every government and society imposes some
restriction in public on individuals.

Negative freedom is basically the freedom from harassment. It is

freedom from external pressures, but what those pressures are have
changed through the ages. Now it would include sexual harassment, but
that term did not even exist 200 years ago. It would in this age include
ones private life, church life, leisure pursuit and even non-governmental
transactions such as buying goods and services. It could also be
considered the freedom from worrying about things such as crime.

In Summary, it is the realm of personal choice, but it is also the

realm of privacy including the right to be free from arbitrary searches and
the right to confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs. Positive and

10

negative freedoms; you cant have one without the other, but it is best to
have as much of both as possible.

Responsibility
Our concern with freedom is connected with the concept of
responsibility. The word responsible comes from the Latin word
respondeo which means I answer. It means answerable, and
accountable. This is the state or fact of being responsible for ones
action. To say that a persons action is free is to be able to ascribe
responsibility. It should be noted that some scholars hold the view that
human beings should not be held responsible for actions which resulted
from determining factors beyond their control.

11

REFERENCES
1. I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. Smith, N.K, London. The
Macmillan Press Ltd. Cited in J.R. Lucas. (Oxford Clarendon Press,
1970), p. 1.
2. S.E. Frost Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers (New York
Garden City Publication 1962) p. 127.
3. R. Popkin, et al., Philosophy Made Simple (London: William
Heinemann Ltd., 1981) p. 105.
4. . J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingness Barnes H.E., (trans), New York:
Washington Square Press, 1966)
5. P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics, The Kpim of Philosophy: (Owerri:
International Universities Press, 1996) p. 254.
6. J.J. Rousseau: The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right
(Trans. Tozer H.J.),Wordsworth Editions Limited 1998) p. 5.
7. S.E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, (New York: McGrawHill Inc: 1994), p. 741.
8. Ibid.p.742
9. J.P. Sartre Existentialism and Humanism (London: Methuen Books
1984) p. 34.
10. J.P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness.p. 567.
11. Loc. Cit.
12. J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingness p. 34.
13. http//www. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company Merriam Webster
M_W.com (access 23/04/2012).

12

14.

I. Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty in F.A. Adeigbo, Readings in

social and Political Philosophy, Vol.1, (Ibadan: Claveranum
Press,1991)p.75

13

CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review
In our effort to understand properly the issue at hand and put this
present study in its perspective, the literature review enables one to see
the answers to this question of freedom of human nature. There are
different conceptions of freedom. Some scholars have made several
attempts, in written works, to solve the problems associated with freedom
of human nature.

In the course of their deliberations, different explanations gave rise

to contrasting positions on the concept. Here, we are going to analyze the
views of some prominent scholars who deliberated on Sartres concept of
freedom of human nature.

In his essay entitled, The Real Essence of Mans True Condition,

Cheryl Green defined what he considers mans reason for being or
existence. This is to make every man aware of what he is and to make
the full responsibility of his existence rest on him1. In assuming this
awesome task, man is plunged into three states or conditions, which are
not seen as negative to Sartre, but are means to activate, uplift and bring

14

into focus mans purpose of existence and his relation to other men.
These three conditions are anguish, forlornness and despair.
For Cheryl Green, Man is anguish2. One cannot only be concerned
for ones own good, but one also has to consider how ones actions will
affect those around one. The choice man makes in order to define his
existence necessitates taking an active, participatory role in creating who
he will be. This is in opposition to or with quietism or inaction.
For Cheryl Green, man, in relegating himself to the idea that God
does not exist, falls into forlornness which is abjectly accepting the fact
that he is alone in a place where there are only men and all possibility
of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with [God]. This
is to say that man is left to himself with nothing inwardly or outwardly to
hold on to for support. He is in fact, on his own without guide, without a
counsellor, without a consoler. In this state, Cheryl Green agreed with
Sartre that man is in absolute freedom. There is no one to blame, accuse
or excuse. Man is solely responsible for his existence and future. He must
therefore trust his own instincts.
Despair, the last of the conditions, focuses on mans will. Man has
the capacity and capability to decide for himself whether or not he will
engage in any endeavour or activity based upon the probabilities of that
15

event occurring. Once there is no longer control or involvement, one

should disengage from them because the world does not revolve around
the whims, the will of man. To be human is to be afflicted with
problems. Sartre writes: man is anguish, forlornness, and despair. This
condition crosses families, races, countries, and time. The words anguish, forlornness, and despair - automatically bring to mind human
suffering. I know these words to some extent, as I think all humans do.
What Sartre described in this theory of existentialism is mans true
condition when he is left to fend for himself in developing his place among
men. And if there is to be a future for man, he must rely upon himself as
the sole resource (inwardly and outwardly), to take upon himself the
responsibility for whom he will be and become in relation to himself and to
other men.
Cheryl Green argues that,
Man needs to be dependent on someone,
something, or some environment to maintain a
sense of cohesiveness and belonging. It also is a
safeguard and a check for his well-being and his
preservation, if you will. With man being so
awesomely made and capable of doing so much,
why are there paradoxes strewn in his path. Man is
so strong, yet so weak; so intelligent, yet capable
of being so foolish3.

16

No man in himself could be all-inclusive; otherwise we could say he

is god. Man needs a polis with order, a polis in which man is responsible
for his actions, but not a man left to rely on himself as the creator of his
being and future according to Sartres notion of freedom.

Brandon Torrellas, in his article titled Exploring the Concept of Free

will expressed his own view on human nature and freedom. The complex
question of whether or not human beings maintain freedom of the will as a
philosophical problem, demands attention. The implications of free choice
include the ability to assign personal responsibility and a sense of selfworth. Ethical considerations rest on the ability of the individual to be held
accountable for his actions. Further, human experience seems to be
satisfied only with some conception of free will. Common perception
dictates that liberty of choice is apparent; but deeper investigation yields
some conflicting evidence. The term free will must be defined so that
the problem may be presented clearly. Brandon contends that freedom
of the will is normally understood to mean an individuals ability to choose
an action without coercion or influence from outside sources4. While this
definition does not appear remarkable, how can something be totally
without outside influence? It is clear that causes exist for almost
everything imaginable. If decisions and actions, like events and other
17

phenomena, have cause, then their outcome is merely as a result of

those causes. This could be stated as determinism. If human action is
dictated by an infinite series of preceding causes, then it cannot be
considered free. Determinism presents a tremendous problem for
advocates of free will because, if taken to its logical conclusion, it
describes a reality without any individual responsibility, a reality that is
unacceptable to a majority of people. And, herein lies the conflict. There is
a perception of free will, but at the same time, an apparently valid form of
reasoning concludes that there can be none.

Kirk Bookmyer, in his article titled freedom and choice, begins by

saying that our freedom to make choices in life has historically been
under scrutiny. The term freedom in this context relates to our day to
day decisions and the choices made available to us, and should not be
mistaken solely for political freedom5. The question whether we are truly
free to make our own choices has a number of responses. The two most
extreme responses range from a definite No, where everything in life is
pre-determined, to a definite Yes, where everything in life is
unpredictable and full of random events. The former belief is known as
determinism, and the latter is known as free will. Both of these arguments
18

will be explored to give an account of whether or not we are free to make

our own choices. A theme running throughout both arguments is our
moral responsibilities and being accountable for our own actions. It would
be difficult to talk about freedom without exploring morality because they
both have implications for each other. The theory of free will, which
advocates that we are free to make our own choices, has always been an
instinctive or a natural response with little evidence. Although this
argument can explain our moral responsibilities because if we are free to
do as we wish then we are accountable for our own actions. Sartre is
among the other philosophers that held this belief. He has his own
personalized ideas that encompass morality.
The free will argument states that we are free to make our own
choices. As humans we pride ourselves in the fact that we are free to
make our own choices and not having this freedom would leave us feeling
almost imprisoned. The free will argument takes into consideration that
there are some things in life that cannot be chosen, that is decided upon
by will, something Sartre calls facticity. These things could include the
fact that we were born as humans and that we are not free to lay eggs like
birds. But our everyday choices such as which job shall I apply for?, or
where should I live?, or as simple as shall I have a cheese or ham
19

sandwich? is up to us and nothing can stop us making this decision.

Sartre believes that we are free in life to make choices. This belief of
freedom stems from his existentialists views, that emphasizes that there
is no pre-existing blueprint of humanity to which we must conform. In
other words, humans choose what they become. This notion is expressed
in Sartres quote existence precedes essence, meaning, we exist first
and then later make some meaning in our lives. Some might say this view
is bleak and depressing because what Sartre, essentially, is saying is that
we live a Godless and meaningless existence, but it is exactly this notion
which permits us as humans to be free to make our own choices.

Toni Doswell, in his own article titled Choice in Decision Making,

argues that there are times when we do not have a choice, such as where
we are born, but at times, we are forced to make a decision. For instance,
if someone has a gun to your head and the options are to do what the
gunman says or die. It is in this situation that someone might argue that
this is not a choice because you are forced into a decision. However,
Sartre argues that in this situation we still have a choice, it might not be a
great choice, but it is still a definite choice. This concept is explained well
by Sartre in the following phrase talking about men in war: I deserve it
20

because I can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Anyway, you

look at it; it is a matter of choice.6
In these unique situations, such as having a gun to your head, you
could argue either way about whether you have a choice or not. However,
the matter of the fact is that you still have an option which could suggest a
choice. The options might not be great but life in general sometimes
presents us with poor options. For example, continuing an unhappy
marriage or divorcing your husband, either way you will probably get hurt.

Steve Marshall, in his article Where true freedom begins and Ends
states that freedom is a state in which a soul has a choice from the
infinite directions and possibilities open to it. Choice is freedom, such that
we make this decision solely as soul. In spite of all our connections,
guidance and our separation, at the end of the day, we are given this
freedom entirely to decide our own life direction. Nothing, not even God
can change our choice. They can only ever guide us but the freedom is
always ours to take the advice or not. This is total freedom within a
restriction. We are restricted in the sense that our choices affect
ourselves, others and even God7.

21

For Coty Chriss, in his article Free will, he explained that human
behaviour is not based upon free will as we cannot do anything we wish
to do and our actions have been predetermined, in that, they are
inevitable. However, the inevitability of those actions is based on free will
of our choice. We can choose what to do in almost any given
circumstance; however the choice we make is already guaranteed and
the results of that choice are also guaranteed. This cycle can continue ad
infinitum. St. Augustine presents an excellent argument when he states
that every act of mans will and every desire and inclination whose first
link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes, proceeds from
necessity.8. St. Augustine agrees with Sartre that we can make choices in
any situation. Taking for instance, Sartres example of war, Augustine
would agree that one chooses any war that one finds oneself as a part.
However, Augustine suggests that such a choice will be made based
upon values, fears and desires present in the chooser. This is because
the chooser is not responsible for his/her own since an individuals
desires, values and fears stem from an outside source because this
outside source, be it the individuals upbringing, genetics or other factors,
are outside of our power or will, for
responsible.
22

which we are not completely

We as humans are highly intelligent. We have intelligence

unparalleled by any other creature on this earth. In fact, it is our free will
or our right to choose what separates us. I have been granted the right to
exercise what I believe. No one can wield power over me or force
anything upon me that I do not allow; I always have the right to choose.
Every human is born with the ability to choose. However, sometimes we
convince ourselves that we have no choice. We train ourselves to see
one way. This does not mean that choice does not exist rather it merely
means that we forget that we have choices. For the fact that I am
endowed with free will, this means that I am free. This is not to say that
there will never be consequence for my actions. This rather means that
the consequences that I experience can be attributed to no one else but
me. It means that I cannot blame others for my misfortune and no one
can truly take credit for my fortune.

It is funny how people walk in the belief that they have been forced
into something when the truth is that they were merely persuaded to act.
The reason that we seem forced is because we are dissatisfied with our
choices. But when it seems that there are no choices and that our will has
been held hostage we must remember one central truth. There is not one
house that is built that does not have a door. Sartre argues that,
23

There is always a choice to be made that

there is an exit even when you cannot see
one. There are always options, God made it
so. There is not one person exists without the
freedom to exercise choice and it cannot be
taken away, this is free will9.

Brent Emmanuel, in his article Free will suggests that human

behavior is the result of deterministic forces rather than choice based on
free will. As philosophers attempt to discover whether there is a god,
many questions arise. One predominant supposition is that if there is a
supreme being and if that being knows everything, then how can we
suggest that we have freedom. In contrast, if there is no supreme being
then we obviously have complete freedom as our actions are not
predetermined by anyone or anything else. If, however, there is a god of
some sort and that god is infinite, then he/she/it would already know
everything and our lives should be completely scripted. Brent agreed that
there is a god and that god knows everything that will happen. Then
nothing will change the way things will happen, things do happen this way
because of peoples choice.

Brent suggests that it is therefore senseless to think of complaining,

since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we
are. This argument is only tenable if one first rejects the existence of a
24

supreme being or a god. Indeed, Sartres first argument is basically that

there is no god or other supreme being hence we are completely
responsible for and dependent upon ourselves. Brent argues that the
very existence of moving matter necessitates the existence of a primary
mover who, that is not made of matter10. The nature of this god is difficult
to define however his/her/its existence is indisputable.

Considering the arguments that there are no accidents in a life, if

I am mobilized in a war, this is my war; I deserve it Sartre believes that
everything in life is a choice, hence we have complete free will. Emma
Jones argues that if Sartre is correct and we do indeed have complete
free will based upon our choice, we must also choose our choice; we
must also choose our circumstances. Then it would be logical to assume
that we can choose both our future and our pasts. Following this
argument, this present moment will become past instantly. Hence, being
able to choose our present means we are able to choose our past; our
present is simply our coming past. If we could choose our past, then this
ability must extend back to the beginning of our lives. Because we cannot
choose our parents, we cannot choose what type of situation we would
like to be born into. One cannot choose to or not to be born, into an
25

abusive home or a good home. Because we cannot choose our past, then
it is impossible to choose our present or future. They are simply pasts that
are yet to be. Because something foreign, our parents, and if one wishes
to extend the argument further, a God or other supreme being, has
chosen our past, it becomes our past. We can assume that Sartres
argument is invalid.

Louise Rusling, in his article Defining Determinism agreed with

Sartre that, as human beings, we are free to make our own decisions and
choices. This belief rejects the argument that

life is pre-determined

because of past events (determinism). In other words, our everyday

actions are the result of other causes. He rationalizes the notion of human
freedom by explaining his thoughts on consciousness. For Louise
Rusling, human beings have free will and because consciousness is
empty, it does not determine what we choose. Sartre argues that we
definitely are not constrained by past choice and we are free to do as we
wish. Sartre does not deny that there are some things we cant change or
influence (facticity), such as, where we are born and who our parents are,
but believes we can change our attitude towards them. Sartre totally
rejects the concept that our genetics and upbringing shapes who we are

26

today; instead Sartre argues that humans have the responsibility to

choose what they become.

This view that we can choose who we become sounds appealing;

however, Sartre states that this freedom and responsibility we possess is
apparently too unbearable for us, hence his phrase condemned to be
free. Man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole
world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as
a way of being. I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without
anything or any person able to lighten it11.

Furthermore, Louise Rusling highlighted the example of war Sartre

used to portray our individual choices and decisions, stating that to be
involved in a war still means you had the choice to do otherwise, which
means that we have always got a choice no matter what. Sartre uses the
following phrase when talking about men in war. I deserve it because I
can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Any way you look at it,
it is a matter of choice.

Secondly, Bad faith (escaping our responsibilities): As human beings,

we always try to escape freedom which is too much for us, and one
coping mechanism to overcome this responsibility is something called bad
27

faith. Bad faith is a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying

your freedom. Louise agreed with Sartre because we are free in every
situation, we are also responsible for the choices that we make. However,
the weight of our freedom or responsibility, can lead to something Sartre
calls, bad faith.

Wang Stephen, In

his article Freedom, Personal Identity and the

Possibility of Happiness, emphasizes that freedom is the foundation of all

human activity and of all the reasons, motives and values which arise
through that activity. In the search for explanations, there is nowhere
further back to go than the original choice of ends that takes place in our
very acts. Freedom is not just of many human capacities which we
activate now and then, it is the stuff of ones being. It is foundational
and self-continuous, since it is precisely the response we have to make to
the insufficiency of all previous foundations12. This raises a number of
questions. Is the free choice of each project irrational? Is everything within
each project complete?

Judy Merrill, in his article Natural Laws, holds that Freedom and
determinism is the balance that keeps us seeking for our purpose in life. If
all was determined as in destiny, then we would have nothing to strive for
28

in our search for the meaning of life. We would merely have to play out all
the events and circumstances already provided for us in our living.
So what is freedom?
Freedom is the ability to control our
circumstances by the way in which we
respond to all the visitations of life. We can
say that a particular circumstance is abusive
to us, by our own judgment, or we can choose
to enlighten rather than abused13.
Our feelings are our responsibility. If existence precedes essence as
Sartre portrayed, can we assume that we have circumstances on how we
accept (or reject) any of the experience of our lives? Our essence is in us;
we determine what our lives will be; we can accept and go with the flow of
the circumstance or we can rank rail against any circumstance and reap
the results of disorder, disease and discomfort. If freedom was offered in
all circumstances without some form of responsibility, then we would be
treading on others right to freedom of choice. That is, perhaps, where
balance comes into play.

William Bowman, in his article Freedom and Choice writes that we

can only assume that our lives are ours to live as we seem fit or assume
that they are predestined, pre-scripted, and were just saying our lives are
going through the motions. But nowhere will we find real, actual proof for
29

one side or the other of the argument. However, we have the ability to do
whatever crosses our minds to do. I could smear Alfredo sauce all over
my body and run through the streets singing the star spangled banner but
this choice is weighed against various bad outcomes that would follow
such a choice. I might be arrested, I would certainly be laughed at,
considering the shape Im in, i might very well have a heart attack.
So, while we are free to do what we are not free to do, without
consequence, so its not really free will, is it? I think truly, free will
extends only so far as restricted by what we have been taught and what
we have experienced.

Where does that leave us? Well obviously, William contends that,
We have freedom to make choices that
change our lives, but our freedom only exists
as the ability to choose between those
options. Some of those options are so selfinjurious that theyre not really choice at all,
but we can choose them all the same. The
only restrictions placed on our thoughts that
we can know about are our experience and
our imagination14
From the above literature review, it is clear that no scholar agreed
completely with the view of Sartre on absolute freedom. The different
explanations, during the course of their deliberations gave rise to
30

contrasting positions to the concept. Yet none was able to mediate

between absolute freedom and limited freedom. However, the main thrust
of this work is to critically analyze the concept of freedom in relation to
human nature as elucidated by Sartre, and the gap this study wishes to fill
is to assert that there is a nexus between human nature and freedom with
a view to exposing the possible limitations and implications of the concept
of absolute freedom as expressed by Sartre.

31

REFERENCES
1. C. Green, The Real Essence of Mans
http/www.cheryl green.com (access 16/06/2012)

True

Condition

2. Ibid p.1
3.

Ibid.p.2

4. B. Torrellas Exploring the concept of free will, http/www.Brandon

Torrellas.com(access 16/06/2012)
5. K.
Bookmyer,
freedom
and
Bookmyer,.com(access 16/06/2012)

choice,

http/www.

Kirk

6. T. Doswell, Choice in Decision Making http/www.Toni Dosewell.com

(access 16/06/2012)
7. S. Marshall,where true freedom begins and Ends, http/www. Steve
Marshall.com (access 16/06/2012)
8. C. Chris Free will http/www.Coty Chriss.com (access 26/06/2012)
9. . J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingness Barnes H.E., (trans), New York:
Washington Square Press, 1966) p. 231.
10. B. Emmanuel Free will http/www.Brent Emmanuel.com (access
16/06/2012s)
11. L. Rusling, in his article Defining Determinism, http/www. Louise
Rusling.com (access 16/06/2012)
12. W. Stephen, Freedom, Personal Identity and the Possibility of
Happiness, http/www. Wang Stephen.com (access 16/06/2012)
13. J. Merrill
18/05/2012)

Natural Laws, http/www.Judy Merrill.com (access

32

14. W. Bowman Freedom and Choice, http/www.William Bowman.com

(access 16/04/2012)

33

CHAPTER THREE
3.1 GENERAL NOTION OF FREEDOM
What is Freedom?
The term Freedom has been defined differently by different scholars
and it is used as frequently as we use the words like love, pleasure,
pain, hate, 'justice and peace with the hope that we know its
meaning. But, when viewed critically, we notice that we do not possess
the real meaning of the word. Different scholars have developed different
conceptions or ideas about freedom; some see it as the absence of
blame. As a philosophical concept, there is no unanimity regarding the
concept of freedom, that is freedom is allowing us to wear anything we
1
like to school and have our hairs as long as we choose" . Freedom is a

relative concept and therefore has generated both negative and positive
concepts. But the understanding of freedom is related to absence of
constraint, though the constraints can depend on diverse causes.
According to Royce, another general meaning of freedom is "absence
of coercion or necessitation. It does not mean lack of influence, but only
2
that these influences do not force me . Freedom is considered as the
3
"...absence of external restraint" . In a democratic system of government,

34

it is assumed that every one is free, at least to make a choice of

candidate for election.
However, we must not define freedom only in a negative fashion as
it were lack of something. Free choice, in itself, is action, a positive force
rather than a mere absence of force. According to the Encyclopedia of
philosophy, there are at least two basic ideas in the conceptual complex
we call 'freedom namely: "rightful self-government (autonomy) and
overall ability to do, choose or achieve things which can be called
4
'optionality' and defined as the possession of open options" . In the light of

above quotation, freedom may be defined as the power for selfdetermination, that is, ability to choose what to do.
A free action would therefore mean an action which a person
chooses to perform and which the person could also choose not to
perform. In other words, one has a freedom of action when one has an
open option in respect to some possible action. For example, choosing to
attend a wedding ceremony, when nothing in the objective circumstances
prevents the person from doing so, should the person choose not to
attend the ceremony. This implies that one has freedom of action when
one can do what one wills but in order to have full open options, it must

35

be supplemented by freedom of choice (free will) which consists of being

able to will what one wants to will, free of internal psychological
impediments. No wonder, Omoregbe says that "Freedom is part of man's
very nature as a rational being, and to lose one's rationality (by insanity),
5
cannot be free actions since the agent does not know what he is doing" .

However, the Webster's New Encyclopedia Dictionary has the idea

of freedom being synonymous with license, which means "the power or
6
condition of acting without compulsion" . Freedom has a broad range of

applications from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being

unduly hampered or frustrated. Freedom suggests release from former
restraint or compulsion. License implies freedom specially granted or
conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom.
Finally, almost all dictionaries have different approaches but agree
that the term freedom calls to mind the negative aspect of absence of
restraint and the positive element of a certain idea of autonomy; self
control on one's activity.
Having taken a look at the general idea or conception of freedom, it
is pertinent to look at the individual views of freedom. For Royce, freedom
is defined as "The lack of both extrinsic and intrinsic antecedent
36

necessary. It means the 'will' enjoys the spontaneity of any elicited

appetite, which cannot be coerced against its inclination by any efficient
7
8.
cause" .Battista Mondin sees freedom as the absence of constriction

According to Hegel, freedom is the proper essence of the spirit, and, that
is to say, its own reality9. Obafemi Awolowo says:
Freedom means a state of being free to do whatever
you like in whatever way you choose, and at
whatever time you elect. We are all free to embark on
whatever trade, vacation, and profession we judge
best suited to our individual talents. In Short, we are
free to do anything.10
Philosophically speaking, freedom means the capacity to choose. It
involves the inevitability of choice, for to be free is to be compelled to
choose. It is therefore impossible for a free being to refuse to choose,
since refusal to choose, ipso facto, means a choice. For Sartre,
freedom is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not
choosing11. Freedom therefore, is a heavy burden laid on man's
shoulders from which there can be no escape, for I am responsible even
for the very desire of fleeing my responsibilities.

3.2 Types of Freedom

Most legal freedoms can be divided into three main groups:
1. Political freedom
37

2. Social freedom
3. Economic freedom

3.2.1 Political Freedom

For Battista Mondin, Political freedom consists in the absence of
political pressures12. For Ogunmodede, political freedom is collective
freedom. For him, it is the state where multiple complex group of people
known as the state are both politically self-autonomous and economically
self viable and reliant13. Political freedom gives people a voice in
government and an opportunity to take part in its decisions. It is self
determination and the absence of imposition of political rule on any group
of people by another.
This freedom includes the right to vote; that is to choose between
rival candidates for public offices and to run for office oneself. Political
freedom includes the rights to constructively criticize government policies.
Political freedom also includes the right to equal accessibility to
government offices and positions14.
This is to say that every citizen who has attained the age of
eighteen and above has the right to participate in the politics of the state

38

through voting and through contesting for official positions. This right also
enables a citizen to have access to government offices and positions in a
state, either through election (elected officers such as the president,
governors, legislators etc), appointment (ministers, commissioners,
ambassadors etc) or employment (civil servants).This right also enable
the citizen to constructively criticize obnoxious policies of government
while praising government for good policies well implemented.
The contemporary idea of political freedom includes the notion of
full citizenship in the personal endowment of every matured man and
woman in the body politics.
3.2.2 Social Freedom
Social freedom, according to Battista Mondin,is the absence of
social determinism such as birth, status, class in the realization of ones
potentials and talents in the society15. This type of freedom is inherent in
the constitutions of states as Fundamental Human Rights. Chapter IV,
sections 33-43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
contains the Fundamental Human Rights16 as adopted from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

39

THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

RIGHT TO LIFE
Section 33(1) Every person has a life to life, and no one shall be
deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a
court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in
Nigeria.
(2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his
life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to
such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such
force as is reasonably necessary
(a) For the defence of any person from unlawful

violence or for

the defence of property;

(b) In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent

the

escape of

a person lawfully detained; or

(c) For the purpose of suppressing a riot,

insurrection

or

mutiny
The implication of this is that no individual or government has the
right to take the life of a citizen. This is the most fundamental and crucial
right to which all other rights hinge.

40

RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSON

34(1) every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his
person and accordingly
(a) No person shall be subjected to torture or to

inhuman

or

degrading treatment.
(b) No person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and
(c) No person shall be required to perform forced

or

compulsory

labour.

NOTE: Forced labour does not include that which is required as a

sentence or order of a court; any form of labour that is required as duty to
the community or well-being of a country.

RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

Section 35(1) every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty
and no person shall be deprived of such liberty. The citizen is free from
assault battery and molestation. Any person who is arrested or detained

41

shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering any question until
after consultation with a legal practitioner or person of his choice and,
within 24hours be informed of the facts and grounds for his arrest or
detention in a language that the person understands; and shall be brought
before a court of law within a reasonable time. Any person who is
unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and
public apology from the appropriate authority or person.

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

Section 36(1) In determination of his civil rights and obligations,
including any question or determination by or against any government or
authority, a person shall be entitled is a fair hearing within a reasonable
time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in
such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. . Every
person should be given adequate time and facilities to defend himself.
Citizens are entitled to appeal to a higher court against a judgment which
they consider unfair.
(5)Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty be a court or tribunal.

42

(10)No person who shows that he has been pardoned for a criminal
offence shall again be tried for that offence.

THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

Section

37(1)

the

privacy

of

citizens,

in

their

homes,

correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communication

his hereby guaranteed and protected.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

Section 38(1) every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought,
conscience and Religion, including freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in
public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in
worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Section 38(2) No person attending any place of education shall be
required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any
religious ceremony or observance if such instruction, ceremony or
observance relates to a religious other than his own or a religion not
approved by his parent or guardian.

43

Section 38(3) No religious community or denomination shall be

prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community
or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that
community or denomination.
Section 38(4) nothing in this section shall entitle any person to form,
take part in the activity or be a member of a secret society.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE PRESS

Section 39(1) every person shall be entitled to freedom of
Expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
ideas and information without interference.
Section 39(2) Without Prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)
of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and
operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and
opinion. Provided that no person, other than the government of the
Federation of a state or any other person or body authorized by the
president on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the
National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a Television or
wireless broadcasting station for any purpose whatsoever.

44

RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION

Section 40(1) every person shall be entitled to Assemble freely and
associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to
any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection
of his interests.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Section 41(1) Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely
throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of
Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit
there from.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law
that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society
(a) Imposing restrictions on the residence or movement of any
person who has committed a criminal offence in order to prevent
him from leaving Nigeria; or
(b) Providing for the removal of any person from

Nigeria to any

other country to
(i) Be tried outside Nigeria for any criminal

45

offence;

or

(ii) Undergo imprisonment outside Nigeria in execution of the

sentence of a court of law in respect of a criminal offence of which
he has been found guilty provided that there is reciprocal agreement
between Nigeria and such other country in relation to such matter.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Section 42(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic
group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason
only that he is such a person:(a)Be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of,
any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of
the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which
Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
religions or political

citizens

groups, places of origin, sex

opinions are not made subject; Or

(b) Be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical

of, any law in force in
administrative
accorded to

of

Nigeria

or

any

such

application
executive

action, any privilege or advantage that is not

citizens of Nigeria of other

communities,

groups, and places of origin, sex, religions or political

46

ethnic

opinions.

(2) No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation

merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.

RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND OWN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 43(1) every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire
and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.

3.2.3 Economic Freedom

This kind of freedom enables people to make their own economic
decisions. This freedom includes the right to own property, to use it, and
to profit from it. Workers are free to choose and change jobs. People have
the freedom to save money and invest it as they wish. Such freedom
forms the basis of an economic system called capitalism.

3.3.1 Limits on Freedom

The laws of every organized society form a complicated pattern of
balanced freedoms and restrictions. Every form of freedom is to be
enjoyed within the bounds of law. Some people think of laws as the
natural enemies of freedom. The anarchists believe that all systems of
government and laws destroy liberty. Actually, the laws both limit and
47

protect the freedom of an individual. This means that the freedom that
sustains an individual should be linked to other individual. On this, J.S Mill
asserts that:
The only freedom, which deserves the name is
that of pursuing our own good in our own way so
long as we do not attempt to deprive others of
17
theirs or impede their effort to obtain it .

However, the law also promotes and forbids people to hit others. But
equally guarantees that people will be free from being hit.

3.3.2 Primary Limitations

Primary freedom is freedom for the full use of our abilities; the
freedom for each person. Its limitations come for each person. Its
limitations come from within us. They may be genetic e.g. sickle cell,
ontological or physical incapacitation. These limitations are causal. They
inhibit us from thinking, feeling or doing specific things and they arise from
our own psychosomatic make up.

3.3.3 Secondary Limitation

Secondary limitations originate from our environment. They are
placed on us by our society. We are limited by the customs, traditions,
48

sociological structures and civil laws of the society in which we live. We

are also limited by the immediate needs and desires of the other people.
Even the freedoms we enjoy through rights have limitations.
The right to life is limited by the taking of the life of a person
condemned to death by the ordinary court of law for offences of murder,
armed Robbery and treason (crime that could cause danger to your
country such as helping enemies during war). The right to the Dignity of
the Human person is limited by lawful detention and torture of a suspect
to get information.

The Right to Personal Liberty is limited by lawful

detention; imprisonment by a law court; detention of lunatics and

detention of the sick on medical grounds not to spread infectious or
contagious diseases. The Right to Fair Hearing can be limited through
timing, when the case is delayed or through court congestion and when
the judiciary goes on a strike action. The Right to Private Family Life can
be limited by the infiltration of Law Enforcement Agents into the home of
suspected traitors for the purpose of state security. The Right to Freedom
of Thought, Conscience and Religion can be limited by the fact that if a
parent decides to send a child to denominational or religious school other
than that of his parents religion, such a child will be given instructions on
that religion. An example is a Muslim sending a child to a catholic school,
49

the child will certainly be taught Catholicism. The Right to Freedom of

Expression and the Press can be limited by the law of libel, sedition and
slander. LIBEL is the act of printing a statement about somebody that is
not true and that gives people a bad opinion of that person. SEDITION
involves the use of words or actions that are intended to encourage
people to oppose a government. SLANDER is a false spoken statement
intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody.
The Right to Freedom of Association can be curtailed by police
order to ensure peace and order in times of organized or violent
demonstrations. The Right to Freedom of Movement can be limited when
a dusk to dawn curfew is imposed in times of emergency. (A curfew is a
restrictive law which says that people must not go outside after a
particular time at night until morning). It can also be limited when one
commits a serious offence that prevents one not to leave the country.
The Right to Freedom from Discrimination can be limited by the
following: (1) A lunatic will be deprived of some of his rights when it is in
the interest of other citizens (2) When a person has a contagious disease
such as leprosy or tuberculosis. Such a person is isolated in the interest
of all. A citizens right to ownership may be infringed upon by government
if such is considered useful for developmental purpose and compensation
50

is paid for such. Also a citizen can lose the right of ownership if such has
been used as collateral for a loan or mortgage1

51

REFERENCES
1. B. James, Freedom and Choice in Education (London: Hutchinson
Educational Ltd 1973) p. 50.
2. J.E., Royce Man and His nature, (United States McGraw-Hill Inc.
1961) p. 196.
3. P. Iroegbu, Kpim of Democracy Thematic Introduction to SocialPolitical Philosophy: (Benin: Ever-Blessed Publisher, 2006), p. 11.

4. E. Craig, Routledge Encyclopedia

Routledge, 1998) p. 753.

of

Philosophy

(London

5. J.l. Omeregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study (Lagos:

Cepco Communication System Limited, 2nd edition, 1989). P. 50.
6. M. Harkavy, et al. Webster's New Encyclopedia Dictionary (London
Dog and Leventhat publishers Inc. 1993)p 321.
7. J.E.Royce, Man and His nature, Op.Cit p. 200
8. B. Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology, Man: An Impossible Project,
(Rome:Ubanaina University press, 1985), p.102
9. G.G.F.Hegel, Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences,p442
10. O. Awolowo, voice of reason, (Akure:fagbemigbe Publishers1981),
p15
11. J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingness Barnes H.E., (trans), New York:
Washington Square Press, 1966) p. 481.
12. B. Mondin, Op.Cit. p.103
13. F. I. Ogunmodede, Chief Obafemi Awolowos Socio-Political
Philosophy: A Critical Interpretation, (Intec Printers, Ibadan,
1985),p.80.
52

14. P.A. Igbafe & S.T. Ozara, Social Philosophy: An Introductory

Approach,( Auchi: A&B computers), p.69
15. B. Mondin. P.102
16.The Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999.
17. J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government (New
York: C.P. Douton and Company 1952) p. 427.
18. P.A. Igbafe & S.T. Ozara, p.77

53

CHAPTER FOUR
SARTRE'S CONCEPT OF FREEDOM
4.1 FREEDOM AS ABSOLUTE
Man Interrogates himself on his own reality. He cannot
escape asking himself this question, since he is a problem
for himself. But, the more the spirit and the events of time
puts him in question, threaten him with confusion and the
dissolution of the human order, and place him before
existence, then the more problematic he becomes. Thus,
the question concerning the nature of man, his place in the
world, and the sense of his existence, arises with a new
seriousness and urgency1.
"Freedom is precisely the nothingness which is made to be at the heart of
man and which forces human reality to make itself instead to be"2
Sartre made freedom to be synonymous with nothingness, and as
such it constitutes the foundation of man's being his driving force. And at
the same time, the connection between the being flees from the
influences of being. This possibility of man is called freedom. Moreso,
expressing this clearly, Baskin asserts that;
The key of man's moral life is freedom. Man's
essence is to be free. Man is free to make what he
will of himself. Man begins without nature or
essence. He (man) is the beginning of nothing. Man
has capacities, which he may or may not actualize,
for he comes into the world with none of them
realized. Man is nothing, but he is free to make
54

something of himself. What he makes of himself will

be his essence. In other words, man first of all
exists, turns up, appears on the scene and only
afterwards defines himself. 3
However, that man is nothing else but what he makes of himself, leads to
what Sartre calls subjectivity. The word subjectivity is used in two senses.
First, subjectivity means that an individual chooses and makes himself.
Second, that it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. The
latter meaning is the essential notion of Sartre's freedom.
Sartre denies that there is such a thing as human nature, or a
human essence that determines or limits our choices. He claims that
what we choose to do (our existence) determines our nature (our
essence).he first principle of existentialism, then, is Man is nothing else
but what he makes of himself. If this is so, then people are absolutely
free.

As Sartre explains in the essay "Existentialism", if existence

really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by

reference to a fixed and given human nature, in other words, there is no
4.

determinism man is free, man is freedom" The question of existence,

being, human freedom is not just a passive statement made by Sartre,
rather, it is based on his deep philosophical conviction that led him to
rejecting the existence of God.

55

Nevertheless, Sartre demonstrates his proof thus:- God and human

freedom cannot co-exist. If God exists, man is nothing. If there is freedom
for him, then there is no need to associate God with man. According to
Iroegbu, in Sartre's analysis of the absolute freedom, God has no place.
For to have a God beside man, would limit man's freedom. In fact, man's
total freedom banishes God as creator and as lawgiver, as both limit
human freedom5. The latter is absolute. In fact, Sartre's argument is that
if God were really to exist, then man's essence would have been fixed in
advance by God, so that man would simply be living according to this
fixed essence determined in advance. In effect, man would not be free but
determined prior by God, the creator of his essence. Man would then be a
ready made, finished product that lives and always remains as he is made
to be without the freedom to live otherwise or to be otherwise.
However, Sartre declares that man is a being who is not what he is
and what he is not that is a self creating being who is not anything in any
fixed way, but who continually makes himself as he pleases. There is no
human nature since there is no God to conceive it. Man is not only as he
conceives himself to be, not as he wishes himself to be, as he conceives
himself after existence. Freedom is man and man is freedom. Freedom is
not merely a quality that man possesses; instead, it is the essence of
56

man; that which defines him. For Sartre, human freedom precedes
essence. The essence of a human being is suspended in his freedom.
Man does not exist in order to be free subsequently, but he has freedom
as his foundation. In other words, man's essence does not precede his
existence, but rather his existence precedes his essence. Man was not
created, for he is free and independent and is a self-creating being.
Nobody gave him any fixed nature or essence according to which he must
live. It is he who creates himself his own nature or essence for he is free.
Man is free but lacks freedom not be free. An existence, which is exactly
what he is and which therefore, is pure positively, cannot be free. I am
condemned to exist for ever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and
motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. "This means that no limits
to my freedom can be found except freedom itself ... that we are not free
to cease being free."6 The totality of man's reality is freedom, hence it is
"defined as a being such that in its being, its freedom is at stake because
human reality perpetually tries to refuse to recognize its freedom"

It is futile "to attempt to stifle man's freedom. Such move will

always collapse which is enough evidence that freedom in its foundation
coincides with the nothingness at the heart of man. Human reality is free
because it is separated by nothingness from what it is and from what it
57

will be. The freedom of man lies in the fact that he is not himself but
present to himself. As a result freedom could be seen precisely as that is
made to be at the heart of man and which forces human reality to-itself
instead of to be.

4.2 FREEDOM AND CHOICE

Freedom can be seen as a being: it is the being of man, his
nothingness of being. It is inconceivable for a man to be a slave at one
time and free at another. Man, in accordance with his being, is free for
ever. And this freedom is exercisable only in choice. Whenever one
makes a choice, one has exercised ones freedom.
The freedom of man comes into action when he makes a choice.
Any situation that I see as mine is constituted by me. It is I that chose it. It
is my choice to constitute the world in a particular manner. This particular
fact makes the responsibility of man to be overwhelming since he is the
one to whom it happens. Sartre, commenting on freedom as choice
writes, "The foundation act of freedom is a choice of myself in discovery
8
of the world." The choice cannot be deliberate since it is the foundation

of all deliberation and since deliberation requires an interpretation in

58

terms of an original choice. Iroegbu states that:

Man has the creative power to escape the
mechanical laws of nature and evolution. The
progress of human creativity proves this his total
freedom, my freedom is my whole being, my entire
existence. At the moral plane, therefore only one
law operates choose thyself, choose thy values.
Consequently, life is empty except the content you
choose to give it. Values as such are non-existent.
9
You create them for yourself.

Out of his free choice, man makes his being and personality authentic. To
choose is not an unconscious act. However, it is simply one with the
consciousness, which we have of ourselves. For Sartre, to will to love and
to love one, are one; for to love is to choose oneself as loving by
assuming consciousness of love.
When Sartre says that man chooses his own self, he means that
everyone of us does likewise and again in making this creating the man
that life want to be, there is no single one of our acts which does not at
the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. "He
continued to be this or that is to affirm at the same time its values....."
Freedom is choice of its being but not the foundation of its being. This
choice is absurd according to Sartre, but not because it is without reason,
but because there has never been any possibility of not choosing oneself.
59

A free being cannot but choose. To refuse to choose is in fact a

choice already made. In buttressing his points Sartre writes that "Freedom
is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not choosing. Not to
10
choose is in fact, to choose not to choose" . Therefore, man in his

freedom must choose, even when he refuses to choose, he refusal to

chooses is already choice, so he must make a choice. Our freedom
constitutes the limits which we subsequently encounter we are free to
fulfill our wish, Baskin Commenting on freedom and choice writes
Freedom or to be free, does not mean not to
attain what has been willed, but choose
through oneself to will. If one fails in the
projection of an action, it does not concern
freedom itself because freedom is not the
possibility of attaining a chosen goal, but the
autonomy of the act of choosing. Thus, man is
condemned to be free and he is responsible
for everything he does`11.
Freedom involves the inevitability of choice. For a free being cannot but
choose.
4.3 FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sartre says:
I bear the whole responsibility without been able, whatever
I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an
instant. For I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing
60

responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, to

refuse to act upon things and upon others is still to choose
myself.man is condemned to be free.12

Man is condemned to be free which means that the idea of man's

freedom is not negotiable. In essence, man is born into freedom. And this
freedom of man goes with much burden. Since the idea of being free
implies that there is no excuse for man's actions. Therefore, "Man being
condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole and for himself as a
13
way of being." He is responsible for the world and for himself as a way

of being. Responsibility, in this sense, implies the cultivation of

consciousness by one to the effect that one is the author of all one's
actions. So, in reality the responsibility of man is of immense nature since
he is one by whom it happens that there is a world, since he is also the
one who makes himself, the for-itself must wholly assume this situation
with its peculiar co-efficient of adversity even though it be unsupportable.
He must assume the situation with the proud consciousness of being for
it. On this Baskin asserts.
For the very worst disadvantages or the worst
threats, which can endanger my person, have
meaning only in and through my project; and it is
one the ground of the engagement, which I am that
they appear.14

61

Therefore, it is senseless to think of complaining since nothing

foreign has decided what we feel, what we live or what we are. Our being
absolutely responsible for our action is a logical follow-up of our absolute
freedom. This freedom is not to be seen as resignation "what happens
to me happens through me and I can neither affect myself with it nor
revolt against it nor resign myself to it"15. Whatever befalls me is mine and
I am equal to it since what comes to me through me or other men is
human. Even a situation one may see as terrible war or torture cannot be
seen as an abnormal situation, for it cannot be seen as a non-human
situation. Each individual is responsible for his situation. Such a situation
has my image which means that it symbolized me.
Sartre objects to a non-human situation. He holds thus:
There are no accidents in a life; a community event which
suddenly bursts forth and involved me in it does not come from
the outside. If I am mobilized in a war, this war is my war; it is in
my image and I deserve it. I deserve it first because I could
always get out of it by suicide or by desertion; these ultimate
possible are those which must always be present for us when
there is a question of envisaging a situation. For lack of getting
out of it, I have chosen it. This can be due to inertia, to
cowardice in the face of public opinion, or I prefer certain other
values to the value of the refusal to join in the war (the good
opinion of my relatives, the honour of my family etc).Any way
you look at it, it is a matter of choice. This choice will be
repeated later on and on again without a break until the end of
the war. Therefore, we must agree with the statement by J.
Romains, In war there are no innocent victims If therefore I
62

have preferred war to death and dishonour, everything takes

place as if I bore the entire responsibility for this war. Of
course, others have declared it, and one might be tempted
perhaps to consider me as a simple accomplice. But this notion
of complicity has only a juridical sense, and it does not hold
here. For it depended on me that for me and by me this war
should not exist, and I have decided that it does not exist.
There was no compulsion here, for the compulsion could have
got no hold on a freedom. I did not have any excuse; for as we
have repeatedly said in this book, the peculiar character of
human-reality is that it is without excuse. Therefore it remains
for me only to lay claim to war16.
This is certainly one of Sartres most troubling ideas. Yet it does
dramatize just how much freedom and power Sartre thinks we really
have. Believing that you are genuinely responsible for everything
around you might overwhelm you. But if you cope with that
responsibility, you would also feel extremely powerful. After all, if you
are really responsible for something, you must also have the power to
change it.
However J.P Sartre, in buttressing negative fatalistic view of human
liberty, enunciates:
I am necessarily a consciousness (of) freedom
since nothing exists in consciousness except as the
non-thetic consciousness of existing.... I am
condemned to be free. This means that no limits to
17
my freedom can be found except freedom itself...
This means that to man is given the full weight of being absolutely free,

63

and thus of being fully responsible for his choices and actions. He does
what he chooses in his concrete existence.
Nevertheless, to make such objections as I did not ask to be born
is rather an indirect way of placing more emphasis on my facticity. The
fact is that everyone is responsible for everything that has to do with him.
The only fact is that no one is the foundation of his very being. That man
is abandoned in the world is not in the sense of his being passive in a
hostile world but simple that he found himself in a situation for his action
without any aversion to escape. This is so for one's very desire of fleeing
one's responsibilities.

4.4

FREEDOM AND GOD

Sartres idea of God runs counter to those of most other

existentialists. He sees himself as one of the atheistic existentialists. His

strong beliefs in human freedom further strengthen his firm stake on the
nonexistence of God. Man creates his essence. In actual fact, there is no
external factor that defines man other than himself. That is the reason
why Sartre maintains that there is no human nature since there is no God
to conceive it. And "not only is man what he conceives himself to be but

64

he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust towards

existence"

18

Sartre like other (atheistic) existentialists found it very distressing

that God does not exist "because all possibility of finding values in a
heaven of ideas disappears along with Him, there can no longer be an a
priori good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think
19.
it" There is no where we can find it stated that God exists, that should

be truthful and so on. In fact, Sartre accepts the idea of Dostoevsky that
20
"every thing is permissible if God does not exist." It is this fact that

makes man to be forlorn since he has nothing to cling to other than

himself for all his actions and life. One does not have any excuse for what
one is and what one does since God does not exist. Sartre opines thus: I
am responsible for everything, in fact except for my responsibility... I am
abandoned in the world... In the sense that I find myself suddenly alone
and without help. 21
Yes, alone am I without help, abandoned in my absolute liberty, and
alienated from all I am consequently meaninglessly groping in the
darkness of existential inevitability. And the fact that existence precedes
essence implies that there is no way we can explain things away by
65

pointing at any particular object that is external to us. "In other words,
22
there is no determinism, man is free, and man is freedom. The non-

existence of God also means that there is nothing that we can turn to in
order to legitimize our conduct. There is no justification available to us for
our conduct since there are no set of values that we must have to abide
with. The values we have are those that we set for ourselves. According
Ndubuisi, in Sartre's analysis of freedom and God:
Creation is impossible as far as God is concerned.
He therefore sees the idea of God-as contradictory,
worthless, Unjustifiable and gratuitous.... Man is in
the centre of his situation, and should stand by such
under whatever circumstance. This explains why
man should be solely responsible for himself and
his actions. And in fact, there is no God that he is
accountable to, for his action 23
Man is condemned to be free, and he is the maker and creator of his
future. "man with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment
to invent man."

24

Sartre sees the idea of God as irreconcilable with man's

freedom we are made aware of our existence by intuition and individual

experience. For instance the feeling of anguish can have ontological
significance. But when we look around, according to Sartre, it will be
impossible of God. Sartre in distress and in absence of what to lean on
says in the words "listlessly, I look to horseback again and languished

66

in the fray, absent-minded butcher or lazy martyr, I remained Griselda, for

want of a tsar, a God or quite simply a father25

4.5 Being
Sartre divides all reality into three modes (categories)
i.

-L'tre - en - soi (being-in-itself)

ii.

-L'tre -'Pour-soi (Being - for- itself)

iii.

-L'tre -'Pour-autrui (Being - for- others)

4.5.1 Being - In - Itself

This is both the unconscious being of phenomena stones, flower and
chemicals and the being of idea. They have nothing secret or hidden.
They are in fact a synthesis. The synthesis of itself in itself. Of all things,
being - in- themselves are most indissoluble. They have neither a within
nor a without. They are simply an unum, just there as being. They are
characterized by their being massive (Masif), opaque and without reason
for existing. They are known simply by their being. In a word, Being - in itself is. In Sartre's own description. "Being - in -itself is. This means that
being can neither be derived from the possible nor reduced to the
necessary. Being is itself. Being is what it is"26
67

The being-in-itself is simply there, unexplainably. Any attempt to explain it

is doomed to fail, even absurd. This is because it exists independently of
our knowledge, and further because it is plenitude of itself. It is thus in
itself complete, undivided - into the Kantian neumenon and phenomenon.
Rather, it has the oneness of the Parmenidean one.

4.5.2 Being - For- Itself

This means, simply the, person. Free for - itself is the being of
subject, not of object, things or ideas. It characterizes man as acting and
conscious, as distinct from the beings of unconscious objects. The foritself is characteristically active, self-regarding and self-affirming of its
being. It is aware of its selfness. "The for-itself is such that it has the right
to turn back on itself towards its own origin. The being by which the why
comes into being has the right to posit its own why since it is itself an
interrogation, a why27.
Thus the human being as the Being-for-itself is basically gifted to
posit its end and the why of its being. In this, he makes himself present
himself. But this presence implies an absence. Thus between the of
consciousness and its object, there is always a gap. This gap of not being

68

a "this" when a "that" is an empty distance. It is Nothingness. The for-itself

is characteristically a lack. It is therefore in need of completion. This need
or lack becomes the necessary ground for man's self-transcendence
which however is realizable only in liaison and in immersion with the first
category-of being, the being in-itself category-for-itself is a concrete
expression of the general Being-in-itself.

4.5.3 Being - for- others

The third form of Sartre's being is the bring-for-other. Here a new
dimension arises in which the self exists outside as an object for others.
Each for-itself seeks to discover its own being by making an object out of
the other.
In contradiction with solipsism Sartre relates the brute and
inextricable nexus of relationships that must among beings, especially
among human begins. He brings in a crucial dimension to his moral
ontology of being. Sartre always calls the factor that imposes the other
person on the being for- itself, as the look. According to Iroegbu, "an
object approaches me in my world. I look up at that object. Behold a
fellow human being, I see him as I see other objects around: trees, goats

69

and elephants."28 He stress further that the other person also looks at me
as an object approaching. But there is yet no personal relationship. And
yet as soon as he looks up at me, our looks meet, our thoughts converge
and a change occurs. He is not just a Being-in-itself, but a Being-for-itself.
He enter my world, he disturbs me. I am uncomfortable, ill at ease, even
threatened. Iroegbu quotes, Sartre by saying that "Thus suddenly an
object has appeared who has stolen the world by an invisible flight and
fixed in the direction of a new object."

29

In this case, Sartre does not see

the new subject as a friend, neighbour or colleague. He is an enemy. Both

parties are suspicious of each other each wants to enslave the other in
continuous existential social rivalry. For danger, conflict shame,
alienation, enslavement and negativity characterize human mutual
relationship. The liaison between us human beings excludes any real
inter-subjective community. It bears radical isolation from each other in
the midst of our absurd and meaningless world.

70

REFERENCES
1.

B. Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology, Man: An Impossible Project,

Rome:Ubanaina University press, 1985 p.1- 2

2.

J.P., Sartre, Being and Nothingness,, Barness H.E., (Trans) New

York: Washington Square Press, 1966) p 568

3.

W., Baskin (Ed) Jean-Paul Sartre(Essays on Existentialism (New

York: Citadel Press 1967) p. 35

4.

J.P., Sartre, Existentialist, and Humanism (London: Methuen Books

1948) p. 34

5.

P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy (Owerri:

Intentional Universities Press, 1996) p. 256.

6.

J.P., Sartre, Being and Nothingness Loc. Cit. p. 437

7.

Ibid., p.440

8.

Ibid., p. 46

9.

P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics. p. 255

10.

J.P, Sartre Being and Nothingness. P.481

11.

W. Baskin, Essays on Existentialism P. 4

12.

J.P., Sartre Being and Nothingness. P. 553

13

Ibid p.439

14

W. Baskin, Essay on Existentialism. P. 63

15.

J. P., Sartre. Essays in Existentialism the Humanism of

Existentialism (New Jersey The Citadel Press 1977) p. 36

16.

J.P., Sartre Being and Nothingness. P. 553

71

17. Ibid. 40-4118.

18. Ibid. p. 41
19. Ibid. p.66-67
20. Ibid. p.41
21. Ibid. p.42
22. Ibid . p.42
23. F. N Ndubuisi, Freedom and Determinism: An inquiry into man's
moral Responsibility: (Lagos: Foresight Press 2006) p. 77
24. J.P., Sartre. Essays in Existentialism. P. 41
25. ibid. p.42
26. ibid. p.9
27. P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics. p. 255
28. ibid. p.255

72

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 EVALUATION
5.1 CRITICAL EVALUATION
Philosophical truths are not revelation; as such they are open to
criticism and evaluation. Sartre's philosophical thoughts and ideas on the
concept of freedom is not an exception. However, his contributions to the
philosophy of human freedom were also generally acceptable to most
contemporary thinkers. His existentialism is commendable for its
humanism and for its return to the concrete situation of human being.
According to Iroegbu,
he digs deep into the human as the center of
philosophical inquiry. He discovers a lot of the
negatives enslavement and meaninglessness.
He also discovers something positive
freedom. He challenges man to discover
himself. Even to invent himself.1
There is an apparent exaggeration in Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of
human freedom. He has a lot of love for the word, freedom. He also has
an unparalleled faith in man's will and ability to chart a course of life for
himself, in spite of prevailing circumstances. As an Atheistic existentialist,
he was unprepared to accept anything other than the past existence
precedes essence and that it is man that creates the latter.
73

In an obvious attempt to solidly defend his stance on human freedom, he

refuse to give enough attention to some crucial issues that affect it. It is
either that he denies out rightly that such issues exist or maintains that it
is within the prerogative of man to surmount such resistance to the
achievement of his goal. He contends that it is in the world that man
realizes himself, for it is inconceivable to talk of a world without man or
man that does not exist in the world.
Sartre did not consider properly the consequences of our choice
which is made possible by our freedom. If man is free and must be
responsible for his actions. It then follows that his choice has to be
reasonable in making a reasonable choice. One cannot afford to close
one's eyes and mind to some factors, ranging from economic,
psychological, legal and even religious. All these factors are actually
determinants in whatever choice one makes. Choice can never be made
blindly when it is considered that as a rational being, man is responsible
for all his actions. Any uncritical choice will certainly attract disastrous
consequences that one might be unprepared to face.
Moreso, Sartre does not see any specific limitations to our freedom.
He accepts the possibility of obstacles and constraints in the exercise of
our freedom. But these obstacles and constraints, according to him are
74

surmountable by us through the exercise of our freedom we are likely to

be constrained by certain factors, then he has to accept too that these
constraints are capable of determining how actions under a given
circumstance should be carried out. And factors that are created as a
result of the existence of obstacles in the exercise of our freedom
certainly determine, to a reasonable extent the ways such actions are
carried out.
The love Sartre has for freedom made him overlook the extent to which
what he calls the facticity of human freedom can influence our choice.
Such facticities which he enumerates as our environment, place, our past,
death and the existence of the others are not enough to constrain our
freedom. He underrates the influence of our past, death and even if the
existence of others in shaping the course of our actions.
On this, F.N. Ndubusi writes thus,
his stance of his cannot be accepted without
hesitation. Our place and environment have
vital roles to play in our choice of action. We
know that such phenomena as weather and
topographic condition often times determine
the ways people behave at a given point in
2
time .

75

These factors determine the kind of business undertaken when and how
our environment and place also determine how we conduct ourselves,
either in a respectable manner or in a violent way. For instance, one who
is in a congenial and highly esteemed environment is more likely to
believe in an honourable manner than one in a disorderly and uncultured
set up.
Nevertheless Sartre underrated death in our ontological structure.
His view is that since death does not constitute part of our subjectivity or
part of our ontological structure, it cannot give meaning to our life. He
equally reasons, that death does not fetter our freedom, and as such
cannot influence our choice of actions. This view of Sartre is quite
unconvincing. According to Mondin's analysis of death, "life is a
3
constant and progressive yielding and subjection to death" . Death is a

necessary factor in a man's life just as life. It is indisputable that one may
not foresee one's death when and how it will come. But the realization by
man that he is finite, that he is not immortal, that death is an inevitable
end for him determines to a reasonable extent his attitude to life, including
the choices of actions he makes from time to time. That we must die one
day make us to be more careful with life itself. We are; as a result, refrain
from doing most things in a bid to avoid it as much as possible. The
76

inevitability of death and more so its fear, necessitates some precautions

we take in life. Our choice of action with regard to health is determined by
the fear of death striking us early in life. That we do not live dangerously
is due to the love we have for living. That we detest certain habit like
excessive consumption of food and drinks is due to the fear that they
might hasten death on us.
Furthermore, his idea of what is good is also problematic. There is
no clear yardstick for this in his work. This is so because it is our
conscience that tells us what we ought to do most times. And considering
the fact that different people have different consciences in the face of the
same action, which conscience will now take precedence over the other
or which does Sartre advocate for a situation in which multiplicity of
values holds sway? Besides, our consciousness grows with time. That
our conscience is favourably disposed to one thing or another is a result
of our orientation, our beliefs, level of exposure and the extent of our
knowledge in regard, to certain facts. This even makes conscience a
subjective matter. A medical doctor's conscience might tell him that
population control through abortion and contraception is quite legitimate;
whereas a Reverend Minister's conscience might tell him that this control
measure is immoral and hazardous. The same argument is tenable in the
77

issue of euthanasia while some see the ideas as ideal and commendable,
others see it as aberrant and condemnable. If this is the case, how then
can one will for others when one is willing for oneself?
Sartre is a confessed Atheist. He sees the existence of God as
contradictory and inconsistent with man's freedom. As a result, he deifies
freedom at the expense of God's existence. One, however, notices that
although Sartre denies the existence of God, he fails to maintain some
consistency in this position. The concept continues to occur and reoccur
throughout his works. He, in fact, believes that the nothingness in the
heart of Being which is the foundation of negative in being for-itself
creates an unquenching desire in us to be God. These desires, according
to him, are hollow and unrealizable since God does not exist. Again, when
we talk of abandonment in the world which implies the dismissal of God,
there is no infinite or perfect consciousness to think of. To say that there
is nothing beside the existing individual means for Sartre that there is no
God, no objective system of value, no in-built essence and most important
of all, no determinism. We are free, he says, we must choose. Sartre's
says "freedom is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not
4
choosing. Not to choose is in fact to choose not to choose" .

78

Obviously, in a logical follow-up to his denial of God, Sartre debunks

the existence of natural laws as well as the existence of human nature
because there is no intelligent mind to conceive them. As a result, he
states that there are no permanent laws by which man is obliged; just as
there is no need for a permanent definition of man. Man to him is a totality
of many possibilities. Therefore man has an absolute freedom. "Man is
5
condemned to be free, and he is the maker and creator of his future" .

Also, the idea of freedom and responsibility that Sartre harps on

pre-supposes the existence of a higher authority other than one that is
responsible for an action. This is to say that Sartre's talks on freedom and
responsibility will be meaningful only with the existence of a force, an
authority that is higher than oneself. And since Sartre did not talk about a
human institution or authority to which one should be responsible to, what
then is the basis of his concept of freedom, choice and responsibility? The
only way out is to assume that there is a force higher than man whom he
is answerable. Since being answerable for an action cannot take place in
a vacuum, it is unthinkable for us to be responsible for an action and at
the same time be answerable to ourselves only. If this were the case,
there would be a lot of subjective values in life, which would make
nonsense of the whole idea of responsibility.
79

Sartre's position on freedom does not meant good for man, According to
Iroegbu;
Sartre also does man the disfavour of alienating him
in solitariness, conflict, enslavement and general
existential absurdity. He equally kills good social
relationships from where man draws most of his
raison-de-vivre (reason for living). For love,
goodness, generosity, sacrifice, among others is
6
happy events of man-in-society .

Sartre's freedom was a huge deceit. Nevertheless, this purported

assertion of absolute freedom by Sartre is uncertainable in this spatialtemporal world. Man however, has limited freedom which is static and
defect. But the only middle course between the two extremes lie
responsible freedom the greater the freedom, the greater the duties.
Thus, man does not simply have freedom as a quality but he is
freedom, for freedom is identical with his being "freedom - I sought it far
away; it was so near that I could not touch it that I can't touch it - it is in
7
fact myself. I am my freedom" .

5.2 Conclusion
Although we must admit that Sartre gave a new look to the concept
of freedom, we cannot accept his extreme position of absolute freedom.
80

Even taking his own thesis as a premise, we can reach the conclusion,
that man is not absolutely free. However, Omoregbe asserts:
Man's freedom is part of his very being, and man is
a finite being, it follows that man's freedom is
necessarily limited. The freedom of a limited being
must of course be a limited freedom. There can be
no such thing as absolute or unlimited human
freedom. Man's freedom is circumscribed by man's
natural capacity, in other words, man is not free to
do what he is incapable of doing. What I am free to
8
do, must be, what is within my power to do .

For if man is condemned to be free, then he cannot help being free. If he

cannot help being free, it means he is not free to be free. He must of
necessity be free. It means then that there is at least one thing about
which man is not free: he is not free not to choose that already limits
man's freedom. The use of condemnation and absolute freedom in one
and the same sense is therefore, a contradiction.
Furthermore, we know that man is not free to choose, according to
Iroegbu "Sartre does man the over-favour of imposing on him absolute
freedom, which is obviously untrue. For man is highly limited. None
chooses his culture. None can construct his own language. Nor can
9
anyone fly to live in his own self-made society" .

81

Man's freedom is also greatly limited by the passions and a chain of other
realities. Sartre's thesis of absolute freedom is illusory for man is a finite
and a limited being created by an infinite Being (God) endowed with
human nature. And if man is to remain man, his freedom will have to be
co-extensive with his human nature especially with his rationality.
However, in spite of the above-stated obvious shortcomings in Sartre's
concept of man's freedom, one should not lose sight of the commendable
effort he made to defend this pet concept of his. He seemed to have had
an over-arching confidence in man to chart the course of his action for
himself. In this regard, obstacles are not enough to stop man's projects
because, according to him, there is freedom only in the resisting worldfreedom is the freedom to change our environment to surmount
obstacles. It is inflated him to the realities of the limitations (of man) in the
exercise of his freedom. Hence, he fails to see some crucial factors that
determine our action - which obviously enslave our freedom. The positive
aspects of this concept, too bound. It shows how deceptive man could be
most times. It is a fact that man resorts to cheap excuses even in the face
of an action he carries out willingly. In such a situation, he tries to balance
his misdemeanour with one force or another. But he that was fully
responsible for such will refuse to take blames for his shortcomings. This
82

is where Sartre's idea of self-deception is most useful.

His philosophy also emphasizes that man has to pattern his life the
way he pleases, for according to Sartre, each man has a virgin future
which is expected to be filled by his actions. So our failures and
successes can only be traced to us, not to any force, seen or unseen. The
realization of this fact obviously will push man to actions that constitute
our personality.
Sartres emphasis on independence of value creation can create in man a
sense of responsibility. It has the potential of informing us that we are just
figures in the scheme of things. Each man has as much opportunity to
contribute to ideas and values like his counterparts. Such realization will
certainly give man a sense of importance, sensitizing him to his debts to
himself and to his society of which he is part.
Sartre's dislike of orthodoxy, rigidity and absolutism can also be
seen in this theory. His belief is that things are subject to changes - there
are no absolute values or universal morality. This is, no doubt, a
pragmatic approach to life. It demonstrates that it is only situation that
actually determines standards or values. Such a theory will obviously
bring about dynamism in the society. Hence, in spite of the apparent
83

exaggeration of Sartre's concept of human freedom, the philosophy is no

doubt that of action, hope, courage and optimism. It shows that it is man
alone that gives meaning to his life.
Conclusively, Sartres notion of absolute freedom is an exaggeration
of human freedom which leads to nihilism in contemporary thought and
behavior. The debate over free will and determinism, then, is not simply a
theoretical issue. It bears directly on the day-to-day realities of life
personal and social responsibility, praise, blame, reward, punishment,
mercy and understanding.

84

REFERENCES
1. P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics, The Kpim of Philosophy (Owerri;
International Universities Press, 1995) p. 257.
2. F.N. Ndubuisi, Freedom and Determinism, An Inquiry into Mans
Moral Responsibility (Lagos: Foresight Ltd. 2006), p. 116.
3. B. Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology, (Rome: Urban University
Press. 1985) p. 262.
4. J.I. Omoregbe, Metaphysics, Without Tears Systematic and
Historical Study: (Lagos Joja Educational Research and Publishers
Ltd. 1996), p. 211.
5. F.N. Ndubuisi, Freedom and Determinism p. 77
6. Loc. Cit.
7. J.P. Satre, Being and Nothingness, p. 362.
8. J.I. Omoregbe Ethics A Systematic and Historical Study (3rd ed)
(Lagos: Cepco Communication System Ltd. 1993) p. 37
9. Loc. Cit.

85

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayer, J.A. Freedom and morality (Oxford: Clarendon,) 1984.
Baskin, W. (ed.) Jean Paul Sartre Essays on Existentialism (New York:
Citadel Press) 1967.
Benon R. (ed). The Philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre (New York Vintage
Books) 1965).
Donagan, A. Choice: The Essential Element in Human Action. (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.) 1987.
Donceel, J.F., Philosophical Anthropology, (London: Sheed Andrews &
Melteel, Inc) 1967.
Eboh, B.O, Living Issues in Ethics, (Nsuka: Afro-Orbis Publishers Co.)
1994.
Fagothey, S.E., Right and Reason, (United States: The C.V. Mosby
Company) 1959.
Gabriel, M.G. The Philosophy of Existentialism (New York: Citadel Press).
1960
Hegel, G.F., Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (Trans.) (New
York: Dover Publication) 1951.
Gabriel, M.G., Existential Background (New York: Alba House) 1973
Hazel, E.B., Humanistic Existentialism the Literature of Possibility
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press). 1951.
Heidegger, J. M., Being and Time: J. Macquarre and E. Rabison (Trans.)
(New York Hanper & Rowy. Pub). 1967
Hosper, J., (ed) An Introduction to philosophical Analysis, (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul). 1970

86

James, B., Freedom and Choice in Education, (London: Hutchinson

Educational ltd.) 1970
Jolivet .R. Sartre: The Theology of the Absurd. (New York. New Mann
Press) 1967.
Joseph, G.B., The Meaning of philosophy (New York: Harper &
Row.)1967
Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason (Trans) (London. The Macmillan Press
Ltd.) 1976
Kaufmann, W., Existentialism; From Dostoevsky to Sartre (New York: The
World publishing, co.) 1966
Lawhead W.F., The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to
Philosophy (2nd Ed.) (United State: Cubin Press.) 2005
Lucas J.R., The freedom of the Will. London: Claredon Press 1970.
Manser, A., Sartre, A Philosophical Study, (London: Athlone Press.) 1967
Maritain, J., The Rights of Man and Natural Law, (London: The Centenary
Press.) 1945
The Person and the Common Good, (Trans) (London: The
Centenary Press.) 1963
Mondin, B., Philosophical Anthropology (Rome: Urban University Press)
1985
McMahon, J.H., Human Being: The World of Jean-Paul Sartre, (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.) 1971.
Mc Gregor, H.C., The Nature of the gods (Trans) (London: Penguin
books.) 1962.
Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in some
Basic problems of Philosophy (6th Ed.) Edited By Joel Feinberg,
(California Wadsworth Publishing Company) 1985.
87

Ndubusisi, F.N. Freedom and Determinism an Inquiry into Mans Moral

Responsibility (Lagos: Foresight Press Ltd.) 2006.
O Malley, J.B., The Fellowship of Being an Essay on the concept of
Person in the Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel: (Nether land Martinas
Night off Press) 1966.
Omoregbe, J., Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study (2nd Ed) (Lagos
Cepco Communication Ltd.) 1993.
Knowing Philosophy, (Lagos Joja Educational Research and
Publishers Ltd.) 1990.
The Positive and the Negative Aspect of Jean Sartres Conception
of Human Freedom, (Louvain Oyez Publishers.) 1976)
Onyeocha, I.M., Introfil: A First Encounter with Philosophy, (Washington
D.C: Council for Research In Values and Philosophy Publishers)
1995
Royce, J.E., Man and His Nature: (Mc Graw Hill Inc.) 1961
Russerl, B., History of Western Philosophy, (London: George Allen, and
Unwin Ltd.) 1979.
Sartre, J.P., Essay in Existentialism Wade Baskin (Ed) New York: Citadel
Press.) 1967
The Words Irene (Trans) London: A Penguin Book) 1967
Being and Nothingness (Trans) by H.E Barnes. London. Methuen &
Co. Ltd.) 1969.
Essence and Existence Perspective in Philosophy Seek, N (ed)
(New York: Holt Rinhart and Winston Inc.,) 1961
Existentialism and Humanism (London: Methuen Books) 1948.
Existentialism is a Humanism Kaufinan W. (ed) Existentialism from
Dostoevsky to Sartre, (New York: The world Pub. Co.) 1968
88

Imagination: A Psychological Critique. (Trans) (Michigan university

Press) 1962
The Files (Less Mouches and in Camera (Trans) by Stuart Gilber.
Hamilton London) 1946
The Problem of Method (Trans.) by H.E. Barnes (New York,
Methuen & co. Ltd,) 1963
The Age of Reason (Trans.) by Eric Sutton (London H. Hamilton)
1947.
Essays in Aesthetic (Trans.) by wade Baskin (New York
Philosophical Library) 1963.
The Reprieve, Trans, by Eric Sutton (London H. Hamilton)1947.
Nausea (Trans.) by Lioyd Alexander (London H. Hamilton,) 1962
Between Existentialism and Marxism, (Trans.) by Mathew (Briston
Western Printing Services Ltd.) 1974.
A Collection of critical Essays (ed.) By Mary Warnock (New York,
Anchor Books) 1971.
Politics and Literature (London Calder and Boyars) 1973
The Transcendence of the Ego and Existentialist Theory of
Consciousness, (New York, Noondya Press.) 1957
Search for a Method. Tran by H.E. Barnes (U.S.A Vintage Books)
1968
Situation (Paris Gallimard) 1947
Theatre. (Paris Gallimard) 1962
INTERNET WEBSITES
http/www.ConciseOxfordEnglishDictionaryile.com (access 24/04/2012)
89

http/www.helium.com (access 24/05/2012)

http/www. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company Merriam Webster MW.com (access 12/05/2012)
http/www.Oxford English
12/06/2012)

Mini

dictionary

6th

Eition.com

http/www.Jean Paul Sartre on Human Nature,

responsibility. Com (access 16/06/2012)

(access

Freedom

and

DICTIONARIES
Harkavy, M., et al. Websters New Encyclopedia Dictionary, (London: Dog
and Leventhat Publishers Inc. 1993.
Hornsby, W.T., (ed.) Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current
English (Revised and update 6th ed.) (London Oxford
University Press) 2000.
Summers, D., et al. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (USA:
Pearson Education) 2003.
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Edwards P. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Vol. 7 and 8) New York:
Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc. and the Free Press.)1967.
Lacey A.R.,(ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy, (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul) 1978.

90