An Analysis Of Maximilien Robespierre's Reign Of Terror

The great social theorist and philosopher, Isaiah Berlin once stated, “Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance - these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible.” In simpler terms, Berlin is saying that to cure injustice and poverty, men may use revolution and reform but they cannot “live only by fighting evils”, they must also live by positive goals that protect society’s interests as a whole and not become guided by their own ignorance. And it is for these reasons that Maximilien Robespierre’s Reign of Terror was not justified. The revolution in and of itself was essential to combat the incompetence of the French monarchy, but the heinous acts and crimes …show more content…
Robespierre regarded himself as the General Will of France and believed that it was necessary to do anything to defend the Revolution and keep France “free” but he was wrong. The guillotine was not necessary nor justified to bring about the freedom of the republic. Robespierre was heavily influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau 's social contract theory which in its simplest state is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people who are the source of all political power. Robespierre did not follow through with these beliefs within his practice and grew to become a callus and overzealous leader that convicted even the innocent in the name of what he believed to be justice. A just leader cannot convict without proof that those convicted were guilty in the first place. While the overall outcome of the revolution was good and helped to abolish the strict monarchical government of France, the Reign of Terror in and of itself was not necessary to achieve these