Problem
Sartre tells us that there is no human nature because there was no designer to pre-establish a nature for us. He means a moral nature, or if you will a pre-established psychology. In other words there is nothing that we must pursue, not pleasure, not pain-avoidance, not rationality or passion, nothing. All of these and all other possible pursuits are choices made by individuals (not their societies). Individuals tend to subscribe to conventional morality because their society does and has for so long that it seems like an absolute. But for Sartre, it's all relative, all a matter of individual choice. In other words, for him, a thing is right if I say it is. (Note: he wants to have it both ways: he wants to say that when I choose a value I choose it as universal, but if someone else chooses the opposite, universality seems to disappear.)
What do you think after your semester-long study of ethical theory? Is it all relative? Why or why not? If you think morality is relative, is it relative to the individual? (subjectivism) or to the culture (cultural relativism)? Why?