This paradox positions de Sade as a destructor who questions moral assumptions rather than an ethical system builder. His legacy remains a thought experiment that pushes the boundaries of human nature – unsolvable, but just as thought-provoking.

- bolzan0

Result

Marquis de Sade's ethical paradox summarizes both the attractive and problematic aspect of his philosophy. While glorifying freedom as an absolute ideal, it ignores the universal applicability of this ideal and makes conflict between individuals inevitable.

In modern ethical debates, especially in the tension between freedom and authority, de Sade's ideas resonate indirectly. For example, thinkers such as Michel Foucault used de Sade's critique of morality and power as a starting point to understand the oppressive nature of social norms.

it may become impossible for the individual to fulfill his desires even.

On the other hand, this paradox also reveals the provocative power of de Sade's thought. His approach questions that moral norms are not absolute and that the suppression of individual desires may be contrary to human nature.

this does not explain how freedom can coexist in practice. If everyone acts according to his rules, the resulting anarchy creates a world dominated by the power struggle, not freedom. This, ironically, undermines de Sade's ideal of freedom; because in an environment of constant conflict,

This nihilistic stance blesses it as an inevitable part of human existence rather than solving the paradox.

A Critical Evaluation

De Sade's ethical paradox contains a serious weakness when considered philosophically. While defining freedom as an absolute value,

this truth. In his works, such as the 120 Days of Sodom, this idea is displayed with a cruel openness: the powerful systematically destroy the weak to satisfy their own desires. De Sade does not offer an ethical solution; instead, he claims that morality itself is an illusion.

De Sade's Approach To The Paradox

Interestingly, de Sade does not see this paradox as a problem; on the contrary, he considers it a reflection of human nature and natural order. According to him, it is natural to crush the weak of the strong, and moral systems are artificial fictions built to hide

it has no result other than chaos and mutual extinction. Similarly, John Stuart Mill's utilitarism advocates individual freedom as long as it does not harm society; whereas Sade prefers to subordinate society to the desires of the individual.

one wins means the other loses.

This paradox contradicts classical ethical theories. For example, according to the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, an action must be generalized as a universal law for it to be moral. However, when Sade's understanding of freedom is generalized,

pleasure, the freedom of the harmed individual to fulfill his own desires is taken away. In this case, the concept of freedom ceases to be a universal principle and becomes only the privilege of the powerful or the dominant. In De Sade's world, freedom turns into a zero-sum game;

Emergence of the Ethical Paradox

This understanding of absolute freedom gives rise to an ethical paradox: if each individual follows his own desires unlimitedly, as Sade suggests, the freedom of one destroys the freedom of the other. For example, if an individual has the freedom to harm another for

Emergence of the Ethical Paradox

This understanding of absolute freedom gives rise to an ethical paradox: if each individual follows his own desires unlimitedly, as Sade suggests, the freedom of one destroys the freedom of the other. For example, if an individual has the freedom to harm another for

In her work Juliette, she clearly reveals this view: “The pleasure of the individual is above everything; the pain of others is not an obstacle to this pleasure.” For De Sade, freedom is not limited to personal satisfaction; it also includes dominating over others to achieve that satisfaction.

or cruel – without restriction. According to him, nature is not a moral guide; in nature there is only power, desire and the urge to survive. Therefore, man should also act in accordance with nature and reject the rules of social morality.