Extended Essay – Structure

To what extent does Camus’ critique of revolutionary violence effectively solve the inner
contradictions of Sartre’s existentialist approach to justice?

Introduction
- Some background on the philosophers, existentialism
- Historical background on why they differed (political oppression XXth century)
- Brief situation of their position on the issue (explain the importance of individual
freedom for Sartre – since existence precedes essence, justice is a “human
construct”)

Chapter 1 (Analyzing Sartre’s Position) – Violence against violence

KEY CONCEPTS: Justice, Existence precedes Essence

- Explain why the contradiction even exists

For Sartre, justice is (very simply put) the ability for you to exercise your freedom.
Revolution (or at least the one Sartre defends) is usually done in the name of
freedom against oppression, but ironically, it must oppress some to be achieved. How
can one justify revolution under the guise of permitting freedom if it is also taking
freedom away from some?

- Explain the concept of violence/counter violence

- Fighting against injustice and why it is important for an existentialist

Since justice is a construct of humanity, unjust societies (or societies that are only
just for some) may form. It is up to one to exercise their freedom to live authentically
by seeking justice if they are oppressed.

- “All means are good for attaining the end, on the condition that they do not alter it in
producing it” → Quote by Sartre which explains his position quite well.
- Counterbalance → Sartre didn’t justify all revolutionary violence. He drew the line
when Hungary’s rebellion attempt was quenched by the USSR.

- Conclusion on this topic:

If revolution must limit freedom in order to achieve its goals, then it seems that it
cannot be justified under the lens that absolute freedom under Sartre’s existentialism
is equal to justice.

Chapter 2 (Analyzing Camus’ Critique of Sartre) – Rebellion against Revolution

- Explain concept of rebellion (as in, existential rebellion)
- Revolution through Camus’ lens (freedom against justice)

It seems absurd, analyzing Sartre’s position, that one may deem that societies built
after revolution will be just for everyone. They will be just for the ones behind the
 revolution, as they are the ones that hold the ideas behind it. A communist revolution
would seem “unjust” to a capitalist libertarian.

- Distinction between rebellion and revolution:

Rebellion is moderation → saying “no” to injustice in the current moment. If that

causes other injustice, we must also renounce it, and so forth

Revolution → Taking rebellion to the extreme without moderating them with other
ideas. Rebellion with a clear “purpose” turns into revolution which inevitably leads to
bloodshed and dogma, going against rebellion.

- The ends don’t justify the means

- Example of The Just Assassins' car bomb scene.
- Conclusion on this topic:

Camus argues clearly that revolutionary violence is always done in the name of an
idea of “justice” which, very ironically, necessitates injustice and repression to be
achieved. It is the attempt to dominate history in a way which is directly incompatible
with the absurdity of life. Rebellion, on the other hand, focuses on the injustice of the
present and is necessarily pluralistic. Any justification of means through ends is
immoral, Camus thinks, and since revolution necessarily devolves into that, it must
not be something that is mindlessly followed.

Chapter 3 (Evaluating the question, who wins?) – Sartre against Camus

- The inevitable corruption of violence
- Justifying violence/Legitimizing violence

Camus’ argument that Sartre is legitimizing violence which should not be legitimized
is strong because it does not argue that violence doesn’t occur or exist for
“understandable” reasons – it simply argues that legitimizing it completely leads to
totalitarianism.

- Impracticality of Camus’ approach → History is many times only moved by

revolutionary violence.
- Innocents → Camus quote “I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother before
justice.” (Dehumanization of the victim)
- Explain the relevance of this for the modern day
- Conclusion on this topic/Response to the question:

Camus’ standpoint, for me, is stronger than Sartre’s. Yes, sometimes violence is
the only way in which oppression can be defeated – it must, however, never be
morally legitimal. If not kept in check, it can lead to dogma and oppression, as
attempting to attain an “idyllic” future is not a possible task. This means that
violence in the name of an ideal is absurd, as that ideal will never be just for
everyone – individual justice ideas will still exist, as humans make their own justice,
just like they make their own essence..
(relevant bibliography)
http://www.wpsanet.org/papers/docs/Lyon%20-%20Responsibility%20to%20Save%20Bodie
s.pdf
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/01/camus-between-god-and-nothing
https://adamgomez.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/camus-neither-victims-nor-e
xecutioners.pdf
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/05/01/6_january_albert_camus_and_the_pr
oblem_with_rebellion_775277.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23512862?oauth_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6Iml2YW5ldGU0NTJAZ21h
aWwuY29tIiwiaW5zdGl0dXRpb25JZHMiOltdLCJwcm92aWRlciI6Imdvb2dsZSJ9
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23512792?searchText=Sartre+revolution+camus&searchUri=%2
Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSartre%2Brevolution%2Bcamus%26so%3Drel&a
b_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A5c73fe8da756
cf4f907ddb973fc1f557&seq=1
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sartre-renounces-communists

Primary Sources:
- Neither Victim nor Executioner (Camus)
- Notebook for an Ethics (Sartre)
- The Rebel (Camus)
- Rome Lectures (Sartre)