rules: (1) Post your position on the topic by stating your claim and
developing 2 arguments in support in about 200 words. (2) Reply in the
opposing view to a classmate. (3) Rebut the opposing view offered to
is clear that the bloodshed of the French Revolution was necessary.
Firstly,the old ways would not just be erased so easily. Nobles and
collaborators outside France would work to undermine the new regime and
impose the old order. In the name of the self-defense that every
sovereign nation enjoys, the French need to "clean house" so
counter-revolutionary elements do not pollute the just society
established by the new Republique.
Secondly, you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Sacrifice is necessary to bring about the greater good for the greatest
number. Jeremy Bentham, an important philosopher said: By the principle
of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of
every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to
have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is
in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or
to oppose that happiness.
Anderson, K. (n.d.) Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the
Greatest Number. Retrieved from
said Abbie, However, the opposing view might say that the number of
lives that were tragically lost at this time was not worth it. Like Jane
mentioned in her response if it were a few people that lost their lives
it would still be unfortunate but more acceptable than 40,000. Some
would disagree with your logic, like writing a response with bias. The
wrong responder, someone could use this against you and would say your
writing is less credible.
bloodshed of the french revolutions was very necessary, as many people
would have opposed the changes, and those people would be the ones with
power. The only way to relinquish them of that power is through their
death, and the death of everyone who might have come to their aid.
Secondly, the death of the anti-revolutionaries was what most of the
revolutionaries wanted, and to go against the majority would completely
defeat the ideals the democratic ideals that the revolution strived to
so close your eyes... imagine someone you really love ... could you now
just sacrifice them to the mob? Or to some kind of greater good?
Really? Oh, sure, it`s easy to say that those people whom we do not
know, THEY should have died for the future. But if we recall that they
were REAL people with real families, then maybe it is harder to just
cast them into the guillotine.
see your point. It`s easy to becold and objective when we are 200 years
in the future and these are just names and numbers in a book. However, I
don;t think that changes the good that the revolution did.
revolutionaires did not enjoy things the way they were in France. They
promised people change and hope. But the only thing that comes from
bloodshed is fear and despair. The Reign of Terror was called that for a
reason. The revolutionaires controlled people with fear and killed
people for disagreeing with them. Yes it could be fine to kill a few
people to let them know they were serious about their cause for change
but it just went wayyy too far. 40,000... that's how many people the
Reign of Terror murdered. All of those people had friends and family.
40,000 is just a number until you really understand how much that really
is. 100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100 is 1,000. You have seen on
TV how big the Super bowl is right? well 40,000 people being killed
would be the amount of people that go to a super bowl for 387.53 years.
Yes a few people might have needed to die for the cause of the
revolution but 40,000 people just makes you ask why. Its just sick if
you ask me. Therefor I believe that if a few people had to die for the
cause, fine, so be it, but not if innocent people are murdered to the
point where people fear for their lives by breathing.
Watkins, J. (n.d) The French Revolution: Cause And Effect. Retrieved
If you were Robespierre would you make the decision to kill all those
people? What if you killed your family? Would you still do it?
Robespierre was a close intimate der to Hitler. Would you like to cause a
World War because you feel the need to make everyone equal, when they
really aren`t! It is like saying if you had control of the United States
you would have to kill almost everyone because everyone has an opinion
and disagrees with a lot that is going on in their country. Would you be
able to wipe out a whole country because they disagree with you? The
people did kill the monarch, but if you don`t think that Robespierre
wasn`t like a monarch and who everyone listened to because they feared
him, then you`re wrong.
blood shed of the French Revolution was not necessary. There was no
reason to kill someone just because of their opinion about the
revolution. I could understand if the person committed a crime and was
sentenced to death. The ends dont justify the means. This is a quote
that exclaims how if you don't deserve something, you don't get it.
Therefore if you truthfully deserve to get your head cut off you should,
but if you don't then you live.
from the other point of view would have said that there is no way to
make progress if you do not kill the people that do not cooperate. If
you say that we should not kill those who dont listen than how do you
suppose we will be able to have a government without everyone hating
reign of terror was a very key to the French getting the perfect
government that they so badly desired. Maximilien Robespierre was the
conductor of it and his philosophy was very true. to wrap up what he
said is "you cant have an omelette without breaking a few eggs". This
philosophy is very true as there is no way that the french would have
made it to the point that they were at with all the people that were
conflicting and rebelling. Getting rid of the people that didn't agree
with your opinion and were gonna interfere with all of your plans was
nothing short of brilliant. Doing this not only got him his way but it
also made everyone fear him and no one would question his authority. If
all of those people were still alive trying to keep the monarch than it
would definitely still be here and we would probably still be under the
rule of a king. If this all happened then who knows where the french
could be a this point
Linton, M. (n.d) Robespierre and the Terror. Retrieved from https://www.historytoday.com/marisa-linton/robespierre-and-terror
opposing view would disagree. Yes in war there will be bloodshed but to
take innocent lives of men, women and children i wrong. They should
have gotten the message through another way instead of killing people.
If they would have thought more about it and looked at there options
they could have found a better way. They could have found a way they
instead of getting fear and hate from the people they could have gotten
there support that would have worked better without their revolution
bloodshed was not necessary to prove a point across. People wanted
change in their country, but they did not want to fear their country. If
anyone questioned the method or even had power, they would kill them,
because they stand out. It's like being scared to think about your
country. People thought that if everyone was equal then there wouldn't
be any problems, if you don't question. That is how they lived! It's
like your being controlled, ok maybe killing some people would get your
point across, but killing 40,000 people, now that is just inhuman! If I
was there I would move or something, or just duck tape my mouth, because
I would question what my country is doing to itself. So, no the
revolution was not worth the bloodshed.
Britannica, T. E. (2018, August 29). Reign of Terror. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Reign-of-Terror
it is pretty messed up to kill 40,000 people, it is very difficult to
have a successful revolution without some bloodshed. It is impossible to
meet every person`s needs in a country and do it without any bloodshed
whatsoever. Although it would be great to have a peaceful revolution, it
would be nearly impossible
the bloodshed of the french revolution necessary? I strongly think that
the bloodshed necessary for a successful revolution. Most if not all
revolutions involved some bloodshed. If you study the England revolution
you can see that it started with people arguing between which role in
government should hold the most power. The French Revolution started
with three determining factors. One was when a drought hit france and
there was no food left to eat. Another factor is that taxes were raised
and this made it hard for low income families. The last factor was
people that were excited for German Unity. After observing all of these
factors from both revolutions you can see that it would have been very
hard to conclude these revolutions peacefully and without bloodshed.
Spielvogel, J. (2014) The French Revolution Begins. Retrieved from
Spielvogel, J. (2014) War And Revolution in England. Retrieved from
opposing view would say that the blood shed during the Revolution was
not worth it! In time the things that came to be would have if there had
been patience. To begin with, France had terrible social conditions and
everyone was just miserable anyway and to add all of the gloominess the
revolution popped in and made the peoples lives even worse. No one was
treated equally which began to upset people, every single day that they
lived was a disaster. This began to make their lives even worse every
WAS THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WORTH IT? Prezi.com, prezi.com/pkykbwiztgau/was-the-french-revolution-worth-it/.
how can you not see that the revolutionaries violated their own values
by these acts? What happened to the Rights of Man and Citizen anyway!?
If you violate your principles to defend your principles, then you
really don;t have any principles do you!
blood shed of the revolution was not necessary. Killing people who
didn't commit a crime and were being killed for a pint is wrong.
Innocence men, women and children were being killed for other people
uses to show they had the power. Taking innocent lives isn't right if
they didn't do anything wrong they could have taken it a whole other way
for a better income than just killing people, if they would have
thought more on it and looked at their options instead of jumping to
conclusions this would have led to less deaths and less wars happening
amongst the people
The French Revolution, French Revolution. [Online]. Available:
https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/. [Accessed: 31-Oct-2018]
opposing view would say, yes it was unfair for many but let`s not
forget that the bloodshed of the French revolution was the abolition of
slavery, inherited rights and privileges, and judicial torture. It was
made to have justice for the citizens. And give for rights for them and
many more privileges.
bloodshed of the French Revolution was absolutely unnecessary. This
time span, known as The Reign of Terror, resulted in 40,000 lives being
taken, often the innocent lives of women and children, whose only crime
was being born into a noble family. People were also put to death for
speaking negatively against the revolution, which completely contradicts
the ideals the revolutionaries were fighting for--freedom of speech.
The idea of the Reign of Terror is completely hypocritical and unfair.
The people convicted were put to death without a proper trial, often
resulting in people being falsely accused. If a proper, fair trial was
used, not nearly the amount of lives would have been taken, proving that
these deaths were not by law and were absolutely not necessary.
Death is not the answer to this situation. Limitations could have
been set in place for these people, or some other way that was not so
drastic. The measures Robespierre took to eliminate the people who might
interfere, not only was unfair, but also caused more trouble for the
revolutionaries. People were offended and upset by these deaths,
resulting in rebellions.Its effect upon public opinion, especially
foreign opinion, was extremely harmful to the Revolutionary cause. Being
unlawful should never be the solution, and in the end negatively
affected the revolutionaries. Ultimately, this was not necessary because
the revolutionaries failed, and so therefore the killing of innocent
man and women was not necessary.
"Reign of Terror." Encyclopedia of Modern Europe: Europe 1789-1914:
Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire. . Retrieved October 19,
2018 from Encyclopedia.com:
believe that the bloodshed of the French Revolution was very
unnecessary. There had to be a better way to do it than to kill
thousands of innocent people. Yes, it wouldn`t be easy but it was
possible and they should have figured out how to do it without so much
French Revolution was worth the bloodshed and brutality it caused. The
Reign of Terror, although barbaric and violent, changed the lives of the
people of France forever. Developing rights, liberty, democracy,
equality, and a new found respect for every individual, the Reign of
Terror succeeded in doing just about everything it had planned to do.
The Revolution was very tragic, innocent people died etc etc.. yet when
you look at the overall picture it was all worth it. It created
Nationalism, and demolished ruling classes.
Take it like this as we have previously talked about, would you (if
you didnt know the people) kill one person to save three? Of course you
would because you would want to save as many people as you could. Well
this is the same idea as the Revolution, as tragic as it was for
thousands of people's deaths, it in return saved hundreds of thousands
people's lives. One must give in order to receive. Although sinful and
sad the revolutionary demolished slavery, inherited judicial torture,
and inherited privileges (which brought together many strong
contributions as well) and yet did so much more. In order for all of
these positive outlooks to happen, these negative outlooks had to be the
J. (1970, January 01). A look at our world... Retrieved from
blood shed was not worth it because all of the innocent lives that were
taken. People would be killed for little things like talking badly
about the revolution or no reason at all. Also the amount of people that
were killed was ridiculous to the point where 40,000 people were
content in this course is subject to copyright law. All content that is
not specifically marked Public Domain or Creative Commons is only for
the use of students enrolled in this course, for purposes associated
with this course, and is not to be retained or disseminated. Content
that is marked Creative Commons may be used under the terms of the
relevant Creative Commons license.