Scan barcode
A review by pascalibrary
The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir
4.0
I just completed a double read-through of Simone De Beauvoir’s “The Ethics of Ambiguity.” In this book, she attempts to develop an ethical system based on Sartre’s existentialism, as outlined in Being and Nothingness. I have never read B&N, so everything I say hereafter should be interpreted in light of that.
The central ethical message in this book is one of ambiguity and freedom. She says we are born in tension, as both object and subject, momentary and temporal, fact and will, etc. Our decisions must always be made in the light of the ambiguity we face, where meanings shift and absolutes don’t exist. Our actions must always prioritize both our own human freedom and the freedom of others. For Beauvoir, there is no distinction; our freedom and the freedom of others are interdependent.
This is just a brief outline, but it captures the essence of what she advocates. It might seem spare, but that is because the content of this book is mostly negative. There is little in the way of a positive description, until the end.
I do like the ethical message, and I like that she tends towards uncertainty and complication. Our world is a complex one, and any ethics must acknowledge this. Beauvoir essentially takes it as an axiom. In fact, she says the hallmark of a moral man is one who is never certain of the morality of their actions, they are always questioning, always critical.
My favorite part of the book is where she establishes her “hierarchy of men”. This sounds awful, but really isn’t. It’s where she outlines the responses to our ambiguous, subjective condition from least to most free. This was very enjoyable to read, and many of the archetypes she spoke of can be seen in everyday life, including in myself. For Sartre and Beauvoir, humans are creatures who want, desperately, to be completed. This is impossible. They negate themselves and turn to things they thing will fill this lack. This attitude leads to the various characters she outlines. It’s up to the free and ethical individual, as morality and freedom are one and the same to her, to embrace this lack and negation as a positive.
I think she could have engaged more with Heidegger considering the MASSIVE debt she and Sartre owe to him. She speaks more on Hegel and Marx than even Sartre, surprisingly. There are a few statements I find to be somewhat laughable considering her intellectual heritage, like her veneration for the Cogito of Descartes.
Again, much of this book is dedicated to Marx and Hegel, and it ultimately engages with the potential for revolution quite extensively. For someone in our time, this reads a bit strange, and doesn’t support the message as well as it may have in the past. She is also more than a bit lenient on some of the atrocities of the USSR.
Ultimately, the greatest challenge her ethics face comes from Beauvoir and Sartre themselves. Their questionable actions are very well-known at this point, and a quick google search will reveal some unfortunate decisions they have made.
This is a good and insightful book, one that I plan on returning to, but it is far from perfect and could have been more concise. Not sure if I would recommend this widely, despite how classic it is.
The central ethical message in this book is one of ambiguity and freedom. She says we are born in tension, as both object and subject, momentary and temporal, fact and will, etc. Our decisions must always be made in the light of the ambiguity we face, where meanings shift and absolutes don’t exist. Our actions must always prioritize both our own human freedom and the freedom of others. For Beauvoir, there is no distinction; our freedom and the freedom of others are interdependent.
This is just a brief outline, but it captures the essence of what she advocates. It might seem spare, but that is because the content of this book is mostly negative. There is little in the way of a positive description, until the end.
I do like the ethical message, and I like that she tends towards uncertainty and complication. Our world is a complex one, and any ethics must acknowledge this. Beauvoir essentially takes it as an axiom. In fact, she says the hallmark of a moral man is one who is never certain of the morality of their actions, they are always questioning, always critical.
My favorite part of the book is where she establishes her “hierarchy of men”. This sounds awful, but really isn’t. It’s where she outlines the responses to our ambiguous, subjective condition from least to most free. This was very enjoyable to read, and many of the archetypes she spoke of can be seen in everyday life, including in myself. For Sartre and Beauvoir, humans are creatures who want, desperately, to be completed. This is impossible. They negate themselves and turn to things they thing will fill this lack. This attitude leads to the various characters she outlines. It’s up to the free and ethical individual, as morality and freedom are one and the same to her, to embrace this lack and negation as a positive.
I think she could have engaged more with Heidegger considering the MASSIVE debt she and Sartre owe to him. She speaks more on Hegel and Marx than even Sartre, surprisingly. There are a few statements I find to be somewhat laughable considering her intellectual heritage, like her veneration for the Cogito of Descartes.
Again, much of this book is dedicated to Marx and Hegel, and it ultimately engages with the potential for revolution quite extensively. For someone in our time, this reads a bit strange, and doesn’t support the message as well as it may have in the past. She is also more than a bit lenient on some of the atrocities of the USSR.
Ultimately, the greatest challenge her ethics face comes from Beauvoir and Sartre themselves. Their questionable actions are very well-known at this point, and a quick google search will reveal some unfortunate decisions they have made.
This is a good and insightful book, one that I plan on returning to, but it is far from perfect and could have been more concise. Not sure if I would recommend this widely, despite how classic it is.