Aristotle believed that everything in existence from humans to tables exists as a tool in order to fulfil a particular role. The idea of a final cause would support the belief in God as an administrative being in assigning of roles particularly those of humans, as oppose to tables.
If a final cause does exist then it would imply that as humans we are each individually created in order to fulfil our life’s purpose, in the case of a doctor he or she may have been created with the allocation of saving life to which their whole life would lead up to the moment or moments when they could fulfil this telos.
It is easy to see why the concept of a final cause is an appealing idea due to the fact that it gives a reason to living to every human alive, unless of course they have already fulfilled their purpose to which Aristotle would have to admit that their existence is now pointless.
The final cause argument however comforting it may be does however set restrictions on our actions. Instead of having the ability to choose what we do we are being lead, unaware throughout choices we make in order to fulfil our telos, in the example of a doctor for example they will choose to study medicine, with a different telos they may choose to study law or even philosophy if their final cause was to educate others in philosophy. With no final cause at all in life possibly this doctor would choose to study a subject they otherwise would not with a final cause.
If a person does believe they have a final cause to their lives leading them through choices they may use this belief to shift guilt or regret from themselves onto their beliefs and use the idea of a final cause to shield themselves from wrong decisions that they have made blaming it on their final cause for guiding them through their choices rather than themselves for making those decisions.
The idea of a final cause may cause conflict between religious believers and scientists as to the kind of final cause we posses, a religious believer may argue that we as humans we each have a different telos, this may be seen in particular in Christianity which teaches that everyone is unique in the eyes of God. A biologist may argue that, like other animals we share a common telos is to survive and procreate in order to sustain our species at the expense of exploiting others.
In contrast to Aristotle’s theory of final cause, modern day philosophers such as Sartre began a new way of thinking leading to the formation of existentialism which opposes the final cause with the claim that humans exist without a purpose and define themselves through their own choices, not a ready made path throughout life.
Sartre’s existential claim that existence precedes essence literally means that as humans we exist without an essence or blue-print to our lives. With this phrase Sartre argues that there is no such thing as a nature of man, instead we are born, not of our own making, but thrown in the world to determine who we will be through the choices we make for ourselves in our lives.
Sartre does not deny that humans have an essence only that we do not have it when we are born. Instead Sartre believes our essence exists at the end of our lives and is made from the decisions we have made. If a carpenter had plans for a table and began building the finished products essence would have preceded existence however if the carpenter had just started building with no real goal his finished product would exist before its essence.
Sartre believes that we are not born with a higher force influencing who we will become, we decide who we will become ourselves which gives us freedom of our own choices but also a responsibility of the consequences of our choices. Existentialists argue that if we feel unhappy with our lives we have only ourselves to blame as it is our choices that have made us unhappy. A sceptic of existentialism may blame or family or friends for influencing our decisions and possibly resulting in our unhappiness however and existentialist would answer that it is our fault for choosing to let ourselves be influenced. People who lead their lives “trying to get along” would be deemed by Sartre to lack moral courage to lead our own lives setting up our own projects instead of drifting from thing to thing believing that it is not our fault we are not doing what we really want to.
Existentialist claims conflict with that of the Christian religion. In Christianity man is born a sinner and must turn to God for forgiveness from sins, therefore the nature of humans before any other influence is to sin, consequently essence precedes existence since man is entirely subject to God’s plan or blue-print. Leading on from religion the idea that somewhere woven into the fabric of the universe morals exist defining what is right and what is wrong can also be rejected by an existentialist who would argue that it is people themselves who must chose what is right and wrong for themselves and what is right to one person may not be to another. Although this idea does increase individuality many sceptics would argue that human nature, of some kind, does determine our views on what is right and what is wrong, even if this nature is based on primeval notions on what best suits the human species.
Supposing existentialism were to be true, with the freedom we gain from defining ourselves we are also left with a great responsibility for our actions. This responsibility may be seen as a negative and many may prefer the loss of freedom to shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions and use excuses for their choices such as “I couldn’t help myself” passing the blame from themselves to their nature; a concept rejected by existentialism.
