I often browse through The Onion and today I came across an opinion piece that I thought was very comparable to the situation with Meursault we have been talking about in class. The article was titled "I'm kind of OCD about always serving white costumers first." Here's the link: http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-kind-of-ocd-about-always-serving-white-customer,34383/
The article is a fake opinion piece by a guy who works as a waiter somewhere. He claims that just like some people are OCD about how they line up their books on the shelf, he is OCD about serving white customers first, then asians, then hispanics, and finally blacks. He says he knows it might sound crazy or eccentric to some, but that's just his nature and he can't really help it.
This seems to be exactly the case people in class are trying to make about Meursault and the murder. His nature is just to be bothered by the sun and so he really has no choice but to shoot the Arab. It was mostly an accident, and he should not he held at fault for the murder (He didn't "pull the trigger," instead the "trigger gave"). He had no bad intentions, that's simply how his nature is.
I find it unlikely that most of us would say that what the waiter is doing is ok, and yet some people make the argument that Meursault should not be blamed for his actions. The premise here is that they can't help their nature and so we shouldn't be held to blame for what they do. (This is assuming we trust their natures to be what they say they are and that they aren't making up excuses for their actions. This question could reasonably be asked of either of them, but that's another conversation.)
My opinion is that much of what it means to be human is to control your own nature and not give in to it. I think that we are all born selfish monsters, and as we grow up we learn (to varying degrees) how to control our own selfish desires or destructive impulses and to be capable of unnatural things like kindness and compassion. If our "nature" includes destructive and harmful tendencies, then it is a crime and endangerment to society when we don't learn to control them. The author in the Onion needs to learn to get over his OCD racism because he is harming minorities. Meursault should be able to overcome the urge to keep walking toward the Arab and the urge to pull the trigger.
Maybe this is me inflicting my moral values on other people, but I don't think we should be held blameless for everything we do because it is in our nature. Our natures hold limitless potential for evil and destruction, and we learn to contradict our natures because that is what is right and just. I side with the jury on this one and hold Meursault 100% guilty of the murder he committed.
As I have said many times before, I'm not sure how to feel about this book. You're right: murder is wrong. And as I have said in a blog entry, I could at least understand the jury's sentence, even if I didn't agree with it (I'm against the death penalty with no exceptions). However, they decide the murder is premeditated, which it is not, and that's the difference between the death sentence and a long time in prison, which as we see, will punish Meursault plenty. They also don't decide that the murder is premeditated based on the facts of the case, which I could again understand, even if we knew otherwise because we see his perspective. They decide the murder was premeditated because he doesn't have an appropriate response to his mother's death in the court's eyes, and they equate this and his putting his mother in a home that she enjoyed after he was unable to financially support her with the murder of his mother. While I would agree with their finding him guilty, and understand their sentence if the trial were about the murder he did commit, I don't think the nonexistent murder of his mother should warrant a death sentence. While we should hold criminals responsible for their crimes, shouldn't intention play a role in punishment? And shouldn't the court be held to the same standards that you're holding Meursault to? They convicted a man for a crime he didn't commit—the murder of his mother—under the name of the crime he did—killing the Arab.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you somewhat, but the trial isn't about whether Meursault is guilty or not. We all know he's guilty and yes he should be punished for it. The trial, however, is about his intentions. I for one value intentions much more than actual actions. I find that if somebody can just explain to me why they did what they did, even if I would not have done the same thing and cannot relate, then I can find a way to forgive them. I don't even think this book is about forgiveness, though. It's not about murder or whether Meursault did it or not, since that is not what the trial focuses on. This is about how Meursault fits into society. He is an outcast, but not obviously. I agree that we can say his nature led him to killing the Arab and that he is still guilty, but does that mean he is an emotionless monster? I think the end of the book proves that theory wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think I'm with Ted here. He is guilty no matter what, that's not the point. The point is that the trial has the sole purpose of understanding Meursault and the crime he committed. The fact that they failed to do so is the point. He is still guilty and should still be punished (though I'm not really in favor of the death sentence either), but the difference really is between death and life in prison. This is a little off-topic now, but I actually think the death sentence turned out to be easier on Meursault than life in prison. He is free now in a way that living in prison until he died of natural causes would not have been an improvement. Still not in favor of the death sentence, fyi.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify for both Lea and Ted, I was not talking about the trial that takes place in the book. I was talking about the trial that goes on in readers minds when they consider whether Meursault is guilty of a crime that his "nature" forced him to commit. I was not a big fan of the French trial either. I thought the court focused too much on his mother and too little on his crime and lack of his remorse for the crime.
DeleteIt's funny but, unacceptable as such a defense on the part of this putative OCD waiter might be, his "excuse" actually is *less* absurd than Meursault's. I'm not sure the key question with Meursault has to do with "blame"; instead, Camus is constructing a situation where the commission of a crime is simply "absurd," and won't conform to any version human motives as we usually understand them. It simply *makes no sense*. This waiter conforms his racism to an available coherent narrative, a "disorder" that "explains" his behavior in quasi-conventional terms.
ReplyDeleteMeursault remains much more difficult to account for.