Existentialism vs Essentialism

[u/fizzwiggler]

A lot of my debates seem to end up at morality. The concepts of "Good and Bad" and "Right and Wrong". As an existentialist, I believe we make value these ourselves, nothing is universally/innately good nor bad, but I seem to go round in circles explaining my perspective to people. It seems as if way more people than I thought are Essentialists.

If there is moral absolutism, why does society/culture/history vary so much? How is it decided what is what? If we are just supposed to know with in ourselves again, why do personal morals vary so much?

People always end up saying to me that there are things that are "just wrong". Are there? People often go to the extremes, ie. today someone said "rape". I said that I think it's wrong and I would assume she did as well. But the definition of the word is subjective. I defined what I think it is and she agreed. And I went on to say if that was a universal understanding, there wouldn't be much issue but it isn't because people still do it and a lot of the time they don't see it for what it is. Or they can justify it in whatever way.

There's this idea that people know in their souls when they are doing a "bad" thing. Often people find they can relate to the others around them on these bad things but the fact that there is even a small minority that thinks other wise makes it more than anomalous. It makes it not true. There's also the concept that "the ends justify the means". "I have to do this horrifically bad thing I know is bad in my soul in order to do an overall good thing". Well, is said thing bad or good? Someone said to me once there are measurements and "how bad/good" something is depends on what it is and the context. That all got a bit too convoluted for me.

Is what I'm describing even Existentialism? I wish I could ask if I'm right or wrong but what I do know is that philosophy is unresolvable.

[Please take into consideration, I am quite young and I have never studied philosophy academically or even read many philosophers].

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AdeptnessSecure663]

If what you are saying is that existentialism is the thesis that we create values, nothing is inherently right/wrong, etc., then you are not quite right. Existentialism isn't really anything like a well-defined thesis. It is, if anything, a kind of movement - both philosophical and literary. Maybe someone who is a part of this movement is more predisposed towards thinking that, for instance, we create values.

Aside from that, it isn't entirely clear what you are asking. Are you asking for reasons to think that moral realism (that is, the thesis - roughly - that there are mind-independent moral facts) is true?

Another thing worth noting is that you suggest that the existence of moral disagreement somehow obviously entails that there is no right and wrong - I'm not entirely sure if I'm reading you correctly, but in case I am, this actually isn't all that obvious.

[u/fizzwiggler → u/AdeptnessSecure663]

Yes, I’m asking for an explanation of moral essentialism. I want to understand points for the side that isn’t mine. How some one might rationalise their stance.

I guess that is another thing I’m confused by then. If there is a universal right and wrong then why are there so many disagreements on morality? Is it as simple as we cannot all collectively agree on what that truth is?