Serving abstract Man and serving this particular man do not overlap.

Evidence

But is the cause of Man that of each man? That is what utilitarian ethics has been striving to demonstrate since Hegel; if one wishes to give the word useful a universal and absolute meaning, it is always a question of reabsorbing each man into the bosom of mankind; it is said that despite the weaknesses of the flesh and that particular fear which each one experiences in the face of his particular death, the real interest of each one is mingled with the general interest. And it is true that each is bound to all; but that is precisely the ambiguity of his condition: in his surpassing toward others, each one exists absolutely as for himself; each is interested in the liberation of all, but as a separate existence engaged in his own projects. So much so that the terms “useful to Man,” “useful to this man,” do not overlap. Universal, absolute man exists nowhere. From this angle, we again come upon the same antinomy: the only justification of sacrifice is its utility; but the useful is what serves Man. Thus, in order to serve some men we must do disservice to others. By what principle are we to choose between them? — Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, 111

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: This is the crux of the reader’s key question — whether willing my freedom requires willing yours. Beauvoir here poses the antinomy that any solution must answer.
• QUESTION: Watch whether Beauvoir later resolves this antinomy or smuggles in the answer — the reader explicitly flagged this.