Blog 8: Sartre

In class, we discussed Sartre's idea of what is the most important form of freedom, which is our freedom to choose who we become. I agree wholeheartedly with this notion because, if we aren't ultimately free to do and think and say and be who we want to be, then what good is any other freedom? And could it even still be considered free? I think not. If we are to constantly be acting in bad faith, then every other decison or choice we make from that point on will be tainted by our inauthentic actions. Freedom of self-choice is the only way to become free from the confines of inauthentic activity, which i believe does nothing but deteriorate and eventually completely lose the self. In class sometime last week, I remember someone (possibly Mary?) asking something along the lines of this; if we must suffer the consequences of our free actions, are we really free? In response to this, I'd say yes, we are. To "suffer the consequences" of something is really just to be responsible for one's own actions. If we make a decision, knowing the consequences for said decision, then we have essentially chosen that consequence. I think that it is impossible to make a decision (or at least an important one) without any outside influence. So even if the consequences affect the process of decision, making the actual decision itself is still a free and authentic choice. And I believe that people should have the courage to accept and "own up to" their own convictions.
Q: Do you think there is ever a time or place where acting in bad faith is acceptable? When/where? And why?