Existentialism is a Copout

A major tenet in existentialism is that people have the freedom to choose, and are therefore responsible for their decisions. This all sounds well and good, and many claim to believe it, until it is looked at in a deeper way.

While this idiom is claimed true, people also believe others need to be forced to do what is right, even for him or herself. There are seatbelt laws and laws against jaywalking, both of which are meant to protect the individual (rather than to protect another party). Laws that protect others are necessary, but plenty of laws exist to protect an individual from his own poor decision-making.

Beyond laws, many expect one to do what is right for another, even when it is the other’s choice not to. For example, at a university, many professors won’t allow laptops in the classroom. The reasoning is that laptops distract the student from their lesson. If they have their laptop they might be playing online games, Facebooking, or reading Psychology posts and not paying attention. This rule, like the laws discussed above, take away the individual’s freedom to choose, and does so for their own good. In other words despite claiming to be existential, many believe in a “brother’s keeper” position.

It’s not being said that this is necessarily bad. It is worth wondering if being existential in this regard is a copout from taking responsibility for another’s well-being.

An example of non-existential thought in therapy is addiction treatment. It is accepted in many treatment centers to mandate Twelve Step program attendance. This is done to initiate the client into the program and, hopefully through repetition, bring them into accordance with the most common treatment model. Many clients do not comply, but others do. Often those that comply will credit being made to attend 12 Step meetings as essential to their recovery. Addiction treatment has long supported taking responsibility for the client in many areas, directing them, and their families, on proper recovery behavior.

Many treatment centers would argue that not mandating 12 Step involvement (as well as other interventions that seem to take away the client’s freedom to choose) results in the client being at grave risk of relapse. It could be argued the client isn’t thinking clearly enough as a result of distortions in thinking due to an addiction; and thereby are unable to make healthy decisions. Not to direct their behavior might be negligent in this mindset.

The idea that cognitive distortions render someone less likely to make healthy decisions could be true of other disorders as well. Cognitive therapy, the modality that began the idea of challenging thinking and perceptions, had its beginning with depressed clients. It stands to reason then that as a result of these cognitive distortions that depressed clients should also be directed in decision-making by a more rational individual.

What about those that aren’t therapists, or aren’t suffering from a mental health disorder? Should you be responsible for the well being of your peers? Existential thought says no. It can be argued, however, that this is a copout. They might point to the advantages for the individual who claims to be existential. First, using the example of the teacher who allows laptops in class, students like her better than the teacher who doesn’t. Even though this rule is in place for the students own good and they will likely benefit from it, the instructor who imposes this may be perceived as strict and power hungry.

Another reward of taking an existential approach to another’s problems is that you don’t have to behave morally. Take for example a man who has affairs with married women. He can claim it isn’t his choice that is immoral; it is hers. He can do what he wants, without any of the guilt that generally comes from acting in a way determined to be detrimental to another. The example doesn’t require marriage: What if the man in the example dates someone who he knows loves him but whom he doesn’t love. It is likely in the lover’s best interest not to stay in the relationship. Many would claim the man, who isn’t in love, should end the relationship. In line with existential thought, as long as he is honest he need not feel guilty.

A final argument that might make being existential a copout is that it is often easier. By not being your brother’s keeper you get to mind your own business and to stay out of the fray. You won’t be blamed if things don’t go well, like you might when you’ve given advice. You won’t feel obligated to help clean up any mess that your “help” led to, and you can steer clear of any responsibility for your peer’s situation.

Existentialism isn’t as detached as its been portrayed here. Detachment without compassion is cold, and existentialism at its pinnacle combines freedom with compassion. In all likelihood neither philosophy is correct all of the time. A balance between both seemingly opposing philosophies is needed, as both have merit in the right circumstances. One has to wonder, however, if at times the existential philosophy isn’t used as a copout.

See you all tomorrow.

Buh-bye.