Still Simont raises an important objection: can this unconditionality
apply equally to what Sartre considers inauthentic ethics, such as
Kantian deontology or Marxist amoral realism? She sees this as “the
point of non-return for Sartre’s reflections on ethics and the reason
why he abandoned the project,” namely, “that the unconditional of the
free ethics hits the wall of inertia and, worse, shows itself to be that
very wall of inertia itself. The paradox of ethics,” she warns, “could
well come from the fact that a human product (une chose ouvre ́e)
presents itself to freedom as its law, and from the fact that the very
unconditional is after all the thing (la chose) in its inert imperatives”
(CSC 51 ).
“ 5. Paradox and Marxist Structuralism”Reference to “the thing” reminds one of the “machine” of Stalinist
Communism, so berated in Eastern Europe in the 1950 s and 1960 s. Of
course, its connotation expanded worldwide to include capitalism and
the “military-industrial complex” in the 1960 s, but Simont’s reference
(and Sartre’s) is probably to so-called structuralist Marxism (Louis
Althusser) or Marxist structuralism (Claude Le ́vi-Strauss). Sartre’s
claim is that structuralism and history are polar opposites; their
approach to ethics is to offer abstractions, like the “codes” of texts or
the “kinship trees” for permissible marriage in a particular tribe.
Whether Sartre’s understanding of structuralism is accurate (and he
did respect structural causality – which is one role of the practico-
inert), he continues robustly to defend free organic praxis from its
perceived attacks.
Sartre’s third, “Dialogical” ethics
We have previewed some features of Sartre’s third ethics in his interview
with Leo Fretz. His remarks in the Schilpp interview confirm the change
of perspective that is evident in the conversations between Sartre and
Benny Le ́vy, his young friend and secretary, that we are about to examine
in detail. Both Raymond Aron and Simone de Beauvoir, in a rare
confluence of opinion, expressed shock at the three essays that were
serialized in the major weeklyLe Nouvel Observateur, presenting the
initial fruit of these exchanges. They saw the interview as an aggressive
376 A second ethics? 0