Ending the Politics of Self-Interest

Ethics must emerge not from external taboos, divine commandments, or faith-based systems but from human responsibility rooted in the self and society. Relying on inherited moral doctrines or transcendent ideals diminishes the ethical subject to a mere follower of rules, rather than an active agent of morality. This paper argues for an ethical framework centered on human responsibility, informed by various philosophical traditions but moving beyond them to articulate a uniquely human ethic. In doing so, we transfer responsibility from theological telos to the lived, existential reality of each individual.

 Autonomy and the Imperative of Freedom: Kant, Sartre, and Spinoza

Kant’s categorical imperative grounds moral responsibility in rationality and universality, proposing that moral laws must be rationally available for all. While this provides autonomy, Kant’s system risks rigidity, imposing a formal structure that fails to account for the nuances of personal freedom or the particularities of human existence. His deontological framework binds the ethical subject to duty while detaching it from the contingencies of lived experience.

Sartre, in contrast, insists on the primacy of freedom. For him, humans must create their values since no God or external authority exists to dictate them. Sartre’s existentialism rejects moral absolutes, claiming ethics as a project of self-creation within the context of radical freedom. However, Sartre tempers this freedom by recognizing how individual choices inevitably affect others, making the Other a crucial part of the ethical horizon.

Spinoza contributes a rationalist dimension by arguing that ethical behavior emerges from understanding our place within the natural order. He claims true freedom results from aligning ourselves with reason, enabling us to navigate the interplay between individual desires and communal well-being. Unlike Kant’s rigid universality or Sartre’s individualism, Spinoza emphasizes human interconnectedness within a rational structure. These thinkers together inform an ethic that values autonomy while acknowledging the complexity of human existence, without requiring divine or dogmatic laws.

 The Ethics of Responsibility: Levinas, Derrida, and Foucault

Levinas shifts the focus of ethical autonomy by positioning the Other as the starting point of morality. The face-to-face encounter with the Other compels us to accept responsibility before rational deliberation begins. For Levinas, ethics involves not formal principles or personal freedom, but

an infinite responsibility to the Other. This approach pushes ethics beyond codification, requiring ongoing ethical engagement in every encounter.

Derrida builds on Levinas by deconstructing ethical language itself. His concept of différance shows that ethical meaning remains deferred, constantly evolving, which destabilizes any attempt to fix ethics into a permanent structure. As a result, ethics must remain fluid and responsive to human experience. Derrida insists that we live in a space of undecidability, grappling with moral decisions that resist fixed answers.

Foucault, meanwhile, critically examines how power shapes ethical norms. He argues that moral systems often serve as instruments of social control, pressuring individuals to conform to societal expectations. For Foucault, ethical responsibility requires ongoing self-formation, resisting these normative pressures. Ethics thus involves developing critical awareness of the systems governing human behavior and striving for liberation.

Levinas, Derrida, and Foucault share the view that ethics is not a static set of rules but a dynamic process shaped by relationships, language, and power. They reinforce the central role of the individual in ethical responsibility, an idea crucial for formulating a human-centric ethic that transcends reliance on transcendent structures.

 Ethics and Society: Marx, Freud, and Žižek

Marx extends ethics into the social realm, arguing that moral behavior cannot separate itself from the material conditions in which people live. His analysis of capitalism reveals how economic structures shape human relations, often fostering exploitation and alienation. For Marx, ethical responsibility involves both individual actions and collective efforts to transform unjust social systems. His perspective anchors ethics in a responsibility to others, particularly within broader socio-economic landscapes.

Freud, by contrast, highlights the unconscious dimensions of human ethics. He shows that moral behavior stems not only from rational deliberation but also from unconscious desires, repressed emotions, and internal conflicts. Freud’s psychoanalytic approach complicates ethical systems by acknowledging the influence of forces beyond rational control. Ethical responsibility requires introspection, demanding that individuals navigate both their conscious values and their unconscious drives.

Žižek combines Marx and Freud’s insights, examining how dominant ideologies co-opt ethical norms to obscure systemic violence and exploitation. He argues that true ethical responsibility involves confronting these ideological illusions and breaking through the comfort they provide. For Žižek, ethics must disrupt ideological complacency, forcing individuals to face uncomfortable realities about power, violence, and injustice.

 The Practical Ethics of Responsibility: Dewey and Heidegger

Dewey offers a pragmatic approach that centers ethics on experience and reflection. For him, ethics does not involve adhering to pre-existing laws but engaging with the concrete realities of life. Dewey views ethics as an experimental process where individuals continuously learn, adapt, and reflect on their actions. His emphasis on the practical and contingent nature of ethics aligns with the need for a flexible, dynamic approach that adapts to changing human conditions.

Heidegger complements Dewey by emphasizing the human condition as “being-toward-death.” For Heidegger, ethics involves living authentically by embracing one’s finitude and taking responsibility for one’s existence. Ethics, in this sense, focuses on responding to the call of Being, aligning with the truth of one’s existence. Like Dewey, Heidegger rejects rigid ethical systems in favor of a flexible approach that adjusts to the complexities of human life.

 Toward a Unique Human Ethic: Responsibility Without Telos

In a world where traditional moral foundations no longer suffice, an ethical framework grounded in human responsibility offers a compelling alternative. This framework rejects transcendent ideals or divine plans as sources of moral action. Instead, it focuses on lived experience and human relationships. The essence of this ethic lies in its fluidity, relationality, and refusal to submit to fixed rules or ultimate goals. It embraces freedom, autonomy, and the recognition that each person bears responsibility for shaping their life and influencing the lives of others.

Responsibility does not come from a higher power or predetermined telos. Instead, it arises from human freedom. We freely act, but with that freedom comes the realization that our actions affect others. This acknowledgment forms the foundation of ethical life. We become the authors of our moral actions, shaping our existence and influencing others through our choices.

Understanding Responsibility

Everyday relationships illustrate this principle. A parent’s responsibility to their child shifts as the child matures. Friends support each other, but that support evolves through shared experiences. These responsibilities remain fluid, not rigidly prescribed by external authorities, and must be continually negotiated and reevaluated.

This framework also recognizes life’s unpredictability. Ethical decisions require responding to specific situations, not following fixed rules. Consider a manager deciding whether to lay off employees during an economic downturn. No universal rule dictates the right course of action. The manager must weigh business needs, the impact on employees, and their moral convictions, knowing their decision will have far-reaching consequences.

The Other further deepens ethical responsibility. Every human interaction calls us to acknowledge the humanity of others and respond accordingly. Whether assisting during a disaster or offering support to a friend, the ethical subject must continuously engage with the relational demands of life.

This view rejects moral purity as the goal of ethical life. Instead, it recognizes that ethical reflection and action form an ongoing project. It acknowledges that ethics must evolve with life’s complexities and uncertainties, urging individuals to embrace the responsibilities inherent in their relationships and actions.

 Suggestions for Further Reading

1. “Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil” by Alain Badiou – A deep exploration of ethics from a philosophical perspective, challenging common moral assumptions.
2. “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre – A foundational text on existentialism and freedom, key to understanding Sartre’s ethical views.
3. “Totality and Infinity” by Emmanuel Levinas – Levinas’ groundbreaking work on ethics and the centrality of the Other in moral life.
4. “Discipline and Punish” by Michel Foucault – Foucault’s analysis of power and its influence on societal norms and ethics.
5. “Critique of Practical Reason” by Immanuel Kant – Essential reading for understanding Kant’s categorical imperative and its role in moral philosophy.
6. “The Ethics” by Baruch Spinoza – Spinoza’s rationalist approach to ethics, focusing on human freedom and interconnectedness.
7. “The Sublime Object of Ideology” by Slavoj Žižek – A critical examination of ideology, its effects on ethics, and the importance of confronting uncomfortable truths.
8. “The Quest for Certainty” by John Dewey – Dewey’s pragmatic approach to ethics, emphasizing adaptability and engagement with real-world challenges.

Disclaimer: The images and videos in this post are AI-generated creations, intended purely for illustrative and conceptual purposes. They are not real-life representations and should not be interpreted as such. Their sole purpose is to offer a visual means of exploring the topics discussed in this post.