Jean Paul Sartre-- Philosophy question, existentialist ethics?

What does Sartre mean by saying that responsibility for our actions involves being responsible for everyone?





Here is a sentence from my book.





"And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only meawn that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men"|||If one human dies of hunger then every human is at fault for the ones death.


That is being human and humane.


If one person is being killed as one thousand turn their heads, then the one thousand are as guilty as the one.


When one person falls and breaks a leg, those that walk past are responsible for any and all injuries that follow or develop as a result of.


That is what separates Humans from wild animals.


The inactive Human is as responsible for an event as the active participants are.


see Germany and the Holocaust, see Russia and the Holocaust, see Serbia and the Holocaust, see Turkey and the Holocaust...list is long.|||Isn't Sartre, actually inferring that it is up to the individual to determine his own actions, and not try to influence others, to think in the same way.





In that, I think he is trying to rationalise certain Political, etc, Activities|||The way I understood it back then is that you are not only responsible for yourself and not even only for everyone. You are responsible for everything. Yes you are responsible for the planet Krypton exploding.





When someone goes hungry somewhere else, you LET him go hungry. You made that choice. This doesn't necessarily mean he wants you to be altruistic, but it is just a fact. And then your choice is a burden on you. It is not someone else's choice to let that person go hungry. It is YOUR choice. It is YOUR morality.





And even if there really is nothing you can do about it, ultimately what Sartre says you are responsible for, is its meaning. Existence precedes essence and that means things exist, and only after that do you supply its purpose.





So a child dies in Africa. According to your moral standards, that is okay. Isn't it okay for the majority of us? This is the angst that we individually must bear.|||i believe that if a person cannot answer a question in a manner all can understand then that person really doesn't have an answer. perhaps that explains my love of Bertrand Russell's writing.





perhaps when we do good we add to the goodness in the world.perhaps when we do evil it adds to the sum total of evil.





or maybe i'm confusing this with Blackwell's Humanism or the preface of Principia Ethica. Whatever, Kierkegaard lives...





i believe good things happen to good people. could it be that in the world of the existental "you are what you do" and extending that one might say that each of our actions has an effect globally?