Exposit both Sartre's account of freedom and Kant's. Which of the two Essay

Exposit both Sartre's account of freedom and Kant's. Which of the two is the most cogent (compelling or convincing) or is th - Essay Example Nevertheless, looking at the universal aspects of morality and rationality, Kantian â€Å"freedom† is more cogent to get it and further put in action. First off, the existentialistic ideas proposed by Sartre follow the idea of absurd and determinism. To be precise, Sartre is likely to suggest a free will when he talks on freedom able to override people’s rationality (Palmer 283). In other words, he pinpoints that a man is allowed to do what he/she wants to notwithstanding possible negative outcomes after possessing such a freedom. Obviously, Sartre highlights the concept of freedom in keeping with the best tradition of the existentialism. As opposed to Kant’s interpretation, Sartre underpins the idea of freedom by the idea of values people get thereafter: â€Å"Sartre has radicalized Kant’s view that the source of value is always the human being, and he has prioritized freedom over rationality† (Palmer 292). Henceforth, Sartre does not rely on the o mnipotence and power of reason. Regardless of it, he shows up the pleasure of freedom as if behind the social life. In turn, Kant would oppose this characterization by giving more grounds to freedom which is a result of a man’s rationality. Immanuel Kant worked out his own vision of the moral philosophy when highlighting the need for freedom. However, he suggests lots of arguments to make his vision out. Thereupon, Kant outlines the meaning of autonomy going hand in hand with what he claims to be freedom. Although Sartre is likely to denote the authorship of a man in what he/she does, Kant is driven by giving some contrast to justify morality and freedom. Thus, he points out morality as a contradiction between duty and inclination and freedom as a controversy between autonomy and heteronomy (Sandel 117). The latter is an opposition to being autonomous, as might be seen. In this vein, Kantian philosophy states that freedom and justice go hand in hand. That is, a person subject to the law is one to accept freedom in its core values. Ostensibly, such evaluation of freedom goes apart with Sartre’s understanding thereof. In fact, Kant’s philosophic treatment of people’s actions can be simply narrowed down to his well-known categorical imperative which is all about mutuality in actions people commit toward one another. Kant’s claims are possible through his close attention to living within the society and complying with the rules and norms of social life. His moral position touches upon the â€Å"intelligible† realm when he remarks: â€Å"†¦we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will together with its consequence - morality† (Sandel 128). Membership comes first as a prerequisite of sharing similar ideals and values between individuals. Societal constraints like the law and its execution serve to strike a balance within the society leading toward freedom. In the European tradition, it is all about the democracy as a weighed sum of people’s wants and needs so that to make all of them free and autonomous as well. When Sartre is quite straight-forward paying much attention to the freedom of action despite of the legal limits shared within the society, Kant just traces back to the basic rules of a civilized social life so that to construct the most applicable and unrepugnant concept of freedom. The difference is that Kant is more obliged to the norms of the society seeing a human being as a biosocial creature equally dependant on the natural