Whenever we act upon our own will, we attempt to reflect our actions through our moral code and our human nature. It comes to a point where the manner in which our actions are determined seems to be pre-existent, in the sense that although we make our own decisions, the abstract outcome is somewhat expected. However, in times that require crucial decisions, these outcomes appear to change, and the sense of freedom within us comes to its zenith.

That is when one realizes that the freedom of choice is ever-present within oneself, and could be used at all times, rather than crucial moments. The fact of the matter remains that the moral code that each of us follows today is essentially considered unambiguous – and rightly so. If you were to converse with a primitive from centuries ago, or a citizen of the Roman Empire, the moral code and the way of life, will be more different than they are similar. As Sartre argues, human nature is determined by the era in which humans live in.

The point is that the essence of human nature shouldn’t be considered as pre-existent or as an unchanging collection of values and ethics. This is one of the key ideas of existentialism. Existentialism is the existence of an individual as a free person that determines their development through their own acts which stem from their will. At first glance, the idea that a person is free seems novice and a quite familiar idea that is known to all. However, it does have a clearer meaning that shows why this philosophical theory has risen to prominence across the last century.

More often than not, we tend to give ourselves alibis for our faults. We blame our flaws and our strengths on factors that escape our ability to control them. One of Sartre’s argument is based on the idea that the coward isn’t born a coward, and the hero isn’t born a hero either. It is in both situations that we present this idea as an alibi; to the coward to protect him from the label, and the hero to control his ego. We credit the external factors for such labels, such as the surrounding environment. Yet in truth, both of these individuals have decided to be that way, by their own freedom of choice, to be labelled the way they are. The coward of today may be tomorrow’s hero, and today’s hero can be tomorrow’s coward.

There ceases to exist an act that will commit oneself towards an eternal label inasmuch as one will have to live with it until the end of time. Similar to the hero, there isn’t any act that will profess that individual to being considered a hero forever. One simple act can deteriorate his status and result in him being viewed in a completely opposite manner. Therefore, it is solely based on one’s own will and commitment that will determine what one really is.

Understanding this gratuitous freedom gives endless capabilities for individual ability. It also gives a certain type of responsibility towards the individual in which one must act in a manner that would positively impact the world should the rest of the people act the same way. Constructing your own moral code or a unique “human nature” should be based on your own experience of living, rather than adopting already existing ones. “Existence precedes essence” is an existentialist statement that sets the human race apart, and states that a person will only be able to define himself after encountering himself in accordance with the world.

The statement sets humans apart because, in the world of objects and production, a craftsman will have a clear idea of what he will create before producing it. For example, before creating a pen, its purpose and the way it should be used will be pre-defined, that is, before the pen comes to be. However, this existentialist notion claims that humans are different in the sense that they come to be, and then gradually begin to understand one’s will, responsibility, and oneself.

Living a life that is based on one’s uniquely constructed moral code will most likely make room for a more optimized life, in terms of success, happiness and ethical responsibility. It is the core of the expression of “being whoever you want to be”.

Of course, some people will end up harming the world should they construct their own moral code. Some will argue that this idea could promote violence and evil. However, explaining the responsibility that comes with living an existentialist life should prevent that. One method that could aid the promotion of this idea is Socrates’ argument of relative positivity. Any sane person would know that doing an “evil” deed will end up in misery, since the act will eventually harm him, and being harmed will essentially lead to unhappiness/misery. He blames the acts wrongdoers on their ignorance, as he claims that “No one who either knows or believes that there is another course of action better than the one he is following will ever continue on his present course when he might choose the better.” Therefore, shedding light on the responsibility of existentialists should present a better course of action.

By taking the right approach towards existentialism, the relation between every individual will result in a better world that is more aware and conscious of its existence, will and responsibility.