Week 14 Study Questions

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)

Beauvoir with Sartre

Note: I've decided to shorten next week's readings to CR 210-220.

Tuesday: Albert Camus, The Plague

1. Throughout this chapter, the character of Tarrou uses the plague as a metaphor for a general human or social condition, saying that everyone has the plague, but some don't know it, others are content with it, and others want to fight it. What is the "plague" according to this metaphor? What, according to Tarrou, is the response of "the good man" to the plague?

2. After witnessing a trial in which the condemned is sentenced to execution, Tarrou became an "agitator," participating in a radical political group in the hope that he could fix the system that allowed such acts of "rational murder." Why did he eventually decide that this was a mistake? What arguments did his fellow members make in defense of their group? Are they right?

3. Tarrou says that his concern wasn’t these arguments, but instead his feelings about the condemned. He "chose to be blindly obstinate" and refuse to change his mind. If he's just being obstinate and is ignoring all rational arguments, how can he be sure he's doing the right thing? Is he doing the right thing?

4. Tarrou says there are only three categories of things in the world: pestilences (diseases), victims, and healers. What does he mean? What is his defintion of a "good man"?

Thursday: Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

1. In contrast to Camus, Beauvoir thinks that violence is necessary and justified if it is in order to end severe political oppression. Is this true? Why or why not? How would Camus or Ionesco respond?

2. In contrast to Sartre, who thinks we are completely responsible for our choices no matter what our circumstances are, Beauvoir says circumstances can excuse us. For example, she says a 16-year Nazi isn’t guily, but his leaders are. Is this true. Why or why not?

3. Beauvoir not only thinks that political opression justifies violence against the guilty oppressor, she also thinks it's sometimes justifiable to use violence against individuals who are fighting for valid causes, and against those fighting on our side. Why? Is she right?

4. What does Beauvoir mean when she says, "No action can be generated for man without its being immediately generated against men"? How does she criticize those who would use this as an excuse for oppression, or for sacrificing the individual to the group?