The concept of freedom according to Sartre is questionable; one cannot argue that we are completely autonomous free beings. As our lives have been influenced by society and the people around us such as friends and family. So the freedom to make our decisions is also limited because we are influenced by others around us. Therefore one can argue that Sartre is mistaken when he argues that we are free to make decisions and to choose what and how one wants to act. This can be applied to the case of the woman on her first date, her decision is not purely based on her freedom to make whatever decision she wants, as her opinions and views on making certain decisions for example how to behave on a first date have been influenced by others. One can argue that the example given by Sartre of the homosexual feeling guilty is also flawed. As he was emphasizing on how one should not deny another human beings transcendence, he stresses the fact that we are all free to choose and others can not choose for us. At the moment you choose decisions for another person you are intervening and are denying their transcendence. But this is not the case as one can argue that complete freedom to make decisions and to choose does not exist.

Sartre’s argument on bad faith is debatable there are any problems with it. One of which was mentioned by Anju about morality. Although Sartre stresses that were are free beings and we have freedom of our consciousness is he then arguing that moral problems such as paedophilia and rape mentioned by Anju are acceptable? Are these incidents according to Sartre a case of freedom and an individual wanting to act in such an immoral manner acceptable? So would Sartre argue that paedophiles and rapists are in bad faith if they do not commit such acts which they desire to? One can argue no in the sense that Sartre also stresses that of course we are responsible for our bad faith but we are also responsible for our freedom so it is up to the individual to make certain choices such as to act in an immoral way or not.

Sartre's philosopy, that the self is "nothing" cannot ground any ethical orders because if we follow Sartre's train of logic, we have negated what is - in other words, our own awareness of what we lack, including unsatisfied desires and expectations, is not reality. Because of our own awareness, we have brought nothingness to the world. Sartre says that nothingness is the basis of all philosphical inquiry and according to his theory we are not part of any order because we can choose to withdraw from this order. Sartre argues that bad faith is essentially lying to ourselves, which is closely tied to inauthenticity and that both ideas are attempts to escape the truth of what we are as human beings.

The main problem that I found with this theory is that Sartre gives us no moral guidance if we wish to avoid bad faith and is problematic because we are not introduced to a way of finding good faith other than our own freedom.

The thought of existentialism may sound great to begin with - claiming that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own chosen goal or project. On the surface that may sounf applausible, but what about in such cases that you hear of in the news - the mother who starved her child to death even going to the extent of locking the cupboards preventing the child accessing food, what about the victims of rape and peodohilia....etc. What about the freedom of those victims, whose freedom is being stolen away in such cases, the childs basic freedom of food to satisfy their hunger, the freedom for protection from individuals who see children them as sexual objects for their own desires and needs, the freedom of the woman who's body is being used against her will.

In these cases is it okay to say the individual(s) inflicting the pain and suffereing on another individual (the victim), its acceptable for them to do so because it was their chosen goal or project and that they are free to make those choices - what about morality?

After reading over and over again, I thought that Sartre had placed the woman in ‘Bad Faith’ before she had even arrived on the date. Is this because the woman had agreed to go on the date, so therefore this placed her in ‘bad faith’ automatically, because Sartre says the woman knew from the beginning the mans intentions of the woman.

I have to agree with you all; on the comments about the woman not being in ‘bad faith’ because I feel that she is actually not in ‘bad faith’ at all. Could we argue that the man is the one in ‘bad faith’ for thinking and having intentions that he had from the beginning for the woman during the date. I think the thoughts the man is having for the woman on the date are a lot shoddier than the woman agreeing to go on the date in the first instance. Would this idea place the man in ‘bad faith’ according to Sartre?

When discussing the ideas in class I thought if we were to switch the roles of the man and woman on the first date, would Sartre have the same out come and thoughts? I personally think that Sartre would think that the man would not be in ‘bad faith’ as the woman was perceived. Is this because the man and woman have different expectations of the date, so therefore the mans expectations would not put him in ‘bad faith’ even if his thoughts and intentions were far worse than the thoughts of the woman.

Sincerity is empty

Raj I understood your point concerning the woman not being in bad faith as she is not making any hasty decisions on how she wishes to act simply because she is not sure of the situation and man she is with. I personally agree with your statement and do not think she is in bad faith at all as this is part of human nature. But one thing I would like to point out is Sartre’s statement on being sincere, Raj you mentioned in your discussion that if the woman forces herself to act upon the man’s advances in the way he expects her to this can be classed as her being in bad faith as she is not being genuine towards herself. (Which I personally agree with).As this statement of being genuine towards oneself is linked to being sincere towards oneself as well. But Sartre stresses on the notion of there being no such thing as being sincere, true or genuine to oneself as this is flawed because the moment you do make this claim of ‘being genuine, true or sincere to yourself’ you are establishing that you are a single static self and denying the transcendent of yourself, and implies some sort of declaration of self which Sartre completely dismisses.

I agree with Anju’s statement of the woman trying to decide on how she wants this date to continue and result. When Sartre claims her to be in bad faith for leaving her hand where it is when the man makes and advance, to me it simply implies the woman’s indecisiveness and of how unsure she is about the situation.

Making a decision or claiming the women to be in bad faith needs to be considered and explored. From this passage, I feel that the woman is not in bad faith at all. Yes, she is struggling to decide as to how to react, however if she were to force herself to act upon his advances in a way that he expects her to this can be classed as her being in bad faith. This is because she would be behaving in way that is not genuine, while not responding to his advances I see this as her being in good faith and not living in self deception.

If the female acts upon impulse or acts without even deciding what she really would want to do (and instead acts how she thinks her date expects her to) would also seem to be morally wrong. By conducting herself in a way which she does not wish to (for example, accepting his advances as intimate even if she doesn’t feel the same way as the male does) her freedom of being herself is being restricted.