Does Meursault Have Morals?
In The Stranger, we see the main character Meursault make some very questionable decisions. We also see his lack of emotion, especially in situations that tend to evoke a strong emotional reaction. For example, he did not have a strong reaction to his mother's death. At first, I thought it was just his way of grieving and that he was not big on showing emotion. However, throughout the book we see him make poor choices due to his lack of caring. His neighbor Raymond asks Meursault to do different things for him that he should not be engaging in or encouraging. Unfortunately, due to his indifference and his lack of judgment, he helps Raymond out and his recurring involvement with Raymond eventually gets him into a lot of trouble.
Some of Meursault's qualities can be seen as having good morals. For instance, Meursault's lack of judgment made people feel like they could talk to him about things and they wouldn't be judged. I would say this is a good thing but he should also learn to use judgment to determine who he should be around. Another good quality he has is being helpful. He helps Raymond out a lot even though he shouldn't have and he is very reliable. However, his natural instinct to help people no matter what doesn't work out for him in the end. He also has a tendency to be a people pleaser whether he realizes it or not. When his mother passes away, he is less concerned about the funeral itself and hopes that his boss won't get mad at him for asking for more time off. This suggests that he feels uncomfortable with asking for things and inconveniencing people. He is also very honest and doesn't like to lie to people even when it could get him out of trouble which can be seen as a good moral.
When it comes to Meursault's decisions at the end of the book. It is easy to say that he has no morals. Additionally, his actions at the end of the book show a lack of thinking or simply indifference. The average person wouldn't murder someone for their "friend". However, Meursault doesn't seem to know the difference between right and wrong and has a "why not" attitude to almost everything. To him, he probably thought he was helping his neighbor out and didn't consider the consequences that would occur. He also made the decision to shoot the arab man four more times without someone pushing him to which also shows a lack of morals. In theory, Meursault knows murder is wrong but his previous lapses in judgment caused him to go against a common moral.
I think Meursault does not have morals. The concept of morals is not a thing to Meursault and he does not define things as good or bad. However, it is not because he is a bad person. His indifference to situations causes him to make what most people consider poor decisions and he ends up in jail. He does things for people to help them even if that thing isn't morally right. In his eyes, he is being understanding and going with the flow. This is especially true with Raymond and he uses his mindset to take advantage of Meursault.
While I understand where you're coming from, I think that it's misguided to absolve Meursault because he lacks a moral compass. Indifference to the feelings of others can absolutely make someone a bad person, especially when their indifference results in harmful behavior. While there's technically no such thing as objective morals, certain behaviors cross a line into objective wrong.
ReplyDeleteHow Meursault would not judge others is an interesting take on his morals, I too entertain the idea that he had none at all. He was mainly concerned with how others viewed him, which is an interesting thought being that he had no care for others actions. He had no emotions, no remorse, and overall nothing contributing to him as a morally functioning human.
ReplyDeleteI for the most part agree that he has no morals. And it is for the most part a bad thing. And he does get manipulated.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good distinction between having bad morals and having no morals: It's not that Meursault has malicious intent in any of these actions, he simply doesn't have the capacity to care about the consequences of his actions. He only sees and feels what's physically in front of him, and doesn't have the foresight to understand how his actions will affect others or himself in the future. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursault's policy of "extreme honesty," even when dishonesty would clearly suit his strategic and self-preservation purposes, does appear to be something LIKE morality: we associate honesty with morality and lying with immorality, and he does seem to have some kind of code. But we never get the sense that he has particularly MORAL reasons for his relentless honesty--he never speaks in terms of good and bad, and he never depicts himself as being honest because it's "good" to do so, or he's "supposed to." It's more like he's seemingly incapable of lying, even when it would be a good idea to lie--EXCEPT in the one instance where his dishonesty truly IS immoral, when he agrees to first write the letter on Raymond's behalf (making him complicit in the violence, by dishonestly impersonating Raymon) and even more so when he agrees to testify on his behalf (when he has no evidence whatsoever that the "mistress" has been cheating on Raymond). Meursault's most consequential moral failings in the novel--the lies that set in motion the circumstances that lead him to fire the gun and get himself on Death Row--come in the rare instances when he is deliberately dishonest. And of course he never contemplates whether these actions are MORALLY justifiable or not--he just doesn't want Raymond to be upset.
ReplyDeleteI believe the topic of Meursault's morals is a complicated one. Our normal-human standards of morality usually mean doing the right thing and trying to be a good person, but Meursault's morality is different. His morality seems to be to remain completely neutral, no matter whether that means being "good" and "bad". By our definitions, he seems immoral, but to his, he probably thinks of himself as perfectly moral.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you say that Meursault doesn't have any morals because of his failure to distinguish between good and bad, but I myself would say that Meursault does have morals. He was able to conceal his real thoughts from the world for a long time, and for a long time, people respected him, because he was able to make himself look flattering to the public eye. So, he clearly does know how to behave in front of people, but his excuse for killing the Arab at the beach was that the sun got in his eyes. He's not a good role model, but he is a respectable, unique person. Nice blog post.
ReplyDeletethis is very complicated topic. While the author points out Meursault's helpfulness and honesty, it's clear that his lack of moral judgment, especially in his relationships and actions, ultimately leads to disastrous outcomes.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Chizara! I believe Meursault's lack of morals stems from his present--focused mindset. Meursault is constantly focused on the present as it comes to him, not concerned with reflection on the past and consideration for the future. Meursault does not think about the consequence for his actions, which are the enforcers and protectors of the common human morals. Thus, we see Meursault's indifference to his own actions and say that he lacks morals and moral judgement.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursault does not have morals, but if he does not have morals at all, does that make him liable for hurting other people? If guilt, morality, and human feeling (disregarding the illegality of murder) are what prevent people from killing others, could Meursault be forgiven? Maybe he could claim some mental disability or inhuman tendencies. The morals that he lacks are sometimes discussed by him though, when he is wondering whether it is bad that he does not feel guilt in the trial or that he DOES feel guilt for his mom dying. That guilt doesn't seem as severe though, since once having killed a man, it disappears. His on-and-off guilt and morals seem very alien and strange... Great post!
ReplyDelete