A major
theme in Albert Camus’ The Stranger
is judgment. Who has the right to judge? It’s clear from the book that juries certainly
aren’t able to accurately judge. They misunderstood Meursault’s motive to kill,
even laughed at him when he tried to tell them that the sun was responsible for
his intensions.
It
seems like Camus thinks that even the reader is unable to accurately judge Meursault.
The first part of the novel we (at least based on class discussions) hated Meursault. Words like “sociopath”
and “depressed” were thrown as a way of identifying him. In the first half of
the book Meursault is very passive. He doesn’t react at all to animal abuse and
is caught up in an act to sexual humiliate a woman. The first part of the book culminates
with Meursault shooting a man. However, it’s in the second half of the book
where Camus flips us on our head and showing that we have no right to judge Meursault’s
actions.
Meursault
has a deep philosophical euphony and Camus is trying to elicit the same
response in the reader. Meursault is uncomfortable and mental confused through
his trail and time in jail. We start to see things through his point of view.
He reflects deeply on his life and his own actions. The book is ended by a long
rant of Meursault’s…
“The others would all be condemned
one day. And he would be condemned, too. What would it matter if he were
accused of murder and then executed because he didn't cry at his mother's
funeral? Salamano's dog was worth just as much as his wife. The little robot
woman was just as guilty as the Parisian woman Masson married, or as Marie, who
had wanted me to marry her.”
Meursault realizes in this moment that the only real
judgement is death, and everyone dies so they are all the same. There is no
difference between him and anyone else. No one is better or worse than anyone
else. That’s why he gets so upset at the chaplain. The chaplain thinks that God
is the final judgement, and He doesn’t judge everyone equally. Meursault’s actions lead him to the conclusion
that there is no real judgement in life. The jury has no right to judge
Meursault and neither do we.
Everyone
has their own motivations and reasons for their actions and how can someone
else fully understand that. However, as a reader it’s extremely off-putting. That
there is no “bad guy”. Raymond and Salamano are not guilty of any natural
crimes. They are justified in their actions. It’s also very interesting to
consider in to the historical time period. Camus is writing this during the
Nazis Occupation of France. So if no one is guilty then does that mean the
Nazis are justified in their crimes? If Raymond is equal to anyone else then
does that mean that Nazis are also justified.
As a reader
I find this very “icky”. I don’t want to consider this which probable why Camus decided to write it. What are your
thoughts?
I agree with you in that it is really icky to think about Nazi's being somehow justified - or at least not condemned - by this narrative. Still, I can't find a way in which they are condemned in terms of this narrative. It really does sound like Camus is trying to say that no one can truly effectively judge another, especially with his portrayal of how bad the judicial system is at judging Meursault. I don't really have an answer for you, but I like how you bring up Nazi's and judgement stuff.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to view the only true judgment as death. We only judge people based on morals that are pretty much entirely subjective, so does that mean that none of us have a right to judge anyone? This creates a dilemma where we have nothing that is objectively right or wrong, so who are we to say?
ReplyDeleteI understand that icky feeling but it can also be nice. I think this relates to dilemma's of free speech and opposition. We can feel bad allowing Nazi ideas to spread but there is a difference between understanding and accepting or justifying. I don't think Camus or many of the ideologies we discussed justify nazism, maybe Camus does the opposite. They do question the idea of justification but I don't think that has to be scary. As a society we can agree that we don't want to allow killing, theft, etc. without having to say there is some absolute truth of morality. And the questioning of absolutes can also lead to awesome things, there are many examples in history where things that used to be considered wrong like gay marriage, or euthanasia are now being examined. These might be controversial but the point is getting rid of absolutes could lead to good things.
ReplyDeleteThis was the topic that really made me reflect during the entire novel. Who are we to judge? Besides his obvious action of murder, his neutrality was what caused us to feel uncomfortable and dislike him. Yet he wasn't defending the good, nor was he defending the bad. Therefore, I really thought about who we are to judge others on their own morals.
ReplyDeleteI do find it interesting that we spent most of part one judging Meursault only to realize after reading part two that we really do not have the right to judge him. I think in many ways the jury during Meursault's trial can represent our own feelings towards Meursault at the beginning of the book. We thought it was strange that he had such a tame reaction to his mother's death, and that he got into a relationship with Marie so quickly. When the jury decided to sentence Meursault to death based on these same judgments, we realized that no one is really in a place to judge someone else for their actions - everyone has a different path in life, and handles feelings like love and grief in different ways.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the idea of someone like Meursault is quite concerning. However, no one including the law would have noticed had Meursault not shot a man. This meaning Meursault's indifference is irrelevant to most people until his passiveness is broken and he starts to commit crimes that hurt others, and that part is scary.
ReplyDelete