Extended Essay – Philosophy

To what extent does Camus’ critique of revolutionary violence effectively

solve the inner contradictions of Sartre’s existentialist approach to justice?

Word Count: XXXX

Iván Concha Herranz

 INDEX

Introduction: 3
Introduction:

Albert Camus’ and Jean-Paul Sartre’s dispute over violent revolution has been

one of, if not the most relevant philosophical discussions of the 20th century. In

the last fifty or a hundred years, there has been countless atrocities all committed

in the name of justice and freedom – and atrocities committed in vain, for that

matter, for they seem to have left us no closer to the idyllic world they were

supposed to achieve. These two titans of existentialism, who were formerly

friends, split apart from each other because of a disagreement closely linked to

this issue. Sartre argued that violent revolution, if necessary, was to be justified

ethically; Camus, however, believed that doing so was a grave mistake, and one

that had already proven to have disastrous consequences. Both positions seem

opposite to each other, however I aim to show through this essay that the actual

situation is more complicated than that. Camus’ claims that revolutionary violence

must never be legitimized is actually an attempt to solve an underlying

contradiction to Sartre’s ethical doctrine – namely, that of existentialist ethics.

In this work, I will analyze that apparent contradiction by focusing on the

concept of existentialist ethics, freedom and, especially, justice, for it is there

where that contradiction lies. Therefore, the question I will focus on for this essay

is the following: To what extent does Camus’ critique of revolutionary

violence effectively solve the inner contradictions of Sartre’s existentialist

approach to justice? I will argue that, for justice to exist under existentialism,

violent revolution should not be ethically endorsed, because as brought forward

by Camus revolutionary violence – even if done under the guise of freedom – is

really done in the name of an ideal, which will itself limit freedom and thus break
existential ethic’s core tenet: that freedom should, under all circumstances, be

defended.