One major connection that really impacted me throughout the text was the one between this text and Mill. On page 284 Camus says in the beginning of paragraph two that the freedom to kill is not compatible with rebellion. I found this to be connected with Mills statements because Mill spoke about freedom, but as long as it doesn't hurt other individuals. I was bothered that some individuals can consider how they gained their freedom by hurting others. Several countries, even the United States, have gained their freedom by rebelling and using tactics that hurt others. Looking from Mills point of view, how can this be considered freedom when they hurt others to get it? However, what if the only way to gain freedom is using these harmful tactics? This …show more content…
Overall, I would have to agree with Camus’s ideas. Moderation should be a necessity when rebelling or rebellion loses its reasoning. Without moderation, rebellion is simply killing others without a true cause, murder. Resentment should not why someone should be rebelling, but rather a demand for some type of recognition. In the beginning of the film, I sided with the military individuals torturing the other man. As I continued to watch the film I saw my position to switch sides. Sure, someone of the tactics the Algerians used to gain freedom were not necessary at times, but at the same time they showed the other side they were serious about the things they wanted. One example of some of their questionable tactics was when the women planted the bombs in the restaurants/clubs. I feel it was almost corrupt that they, in a sense, got their freedom due to terroristic methods. I feel like they could have possibly thought of another way. Anyway, it was sad to see young couples and even babies sitting in these buildings not knowing their death was upon them. I