Sartre's Free Will And Mitigating Variables

Sartre's view that we act freely each time we act supposes that we have to bear the consequences for our actions -- we are responsible for them. It is the job of the legal profession, however, to show how one is not fully responsible for one's actions. According to some laws, people are not fully responsible for their actions when they are coerced by another, when they are mentally incapacitated, when they are highly overcome with emotion, or when they are young, to name just a few examples. The famous Twinkie Defense even supposes that people are not fully responsible for their actions when they have too much sugar! This means that the law says, in these instances, that humans are not free each time they act. Other variables play a role in humans' free will. In the end, it is a synthesis between the law's ideas and Sartre's ideas that can best explain human free will. Humans are free to act most of the time, and they must be held responsible for their actions because they were free to choose another action instead of the one they chose. However, some cases exist in which another variable overrides a person's free will. For example, if a person has a mental disorder or a psychological problem, this can certainly keep a person from acting freely.

Other variables are more controversial. For instance, if a man murders his wife in a fit of rage, was he acting freely, or did another variable -- passion -- mitigate that freedom? Sartre would say that the man acted freely, and should be held responsible for his actions, while a good lawyer would argue that the variable of passion makes the man less free -- less responsible. He still had a choice, but it was harder for him to make it because of the passionate feelings he was experiencing. Thus, while Sartre's view is true in most cases, I do believe variables exist that mitigate the degree with which others can make free choices.