Abstract

Disturbed by the fact that most commentators and anthologists never bother to inquire seriously whether Sartre's admittedly influential ethics is rationally defensible, Anderson intends to demonstrate that a Sartrean ethics is coherent and plausible, "once certain initial choices are made". These elective assumptions are that human choice is the sole source of moral value and that one values a meaningful or justified life and prizes specifically logic and consistency. Though scarcely irrational "choices," they do raise the question of the presumed ultimacy of freedom in Sartrean ethics, Anderson's most telling criticism of a system with which he is on the whole rather sympathetic.