The role of judgement in The Outsider :: English Literature

The role of judgement in The Outsider The actions of Meursault, the protagonist in The Outsider by Albert Camus, are characterized by irrationality. For example, there is no clear logical reason for his decision to marry Marie or to kill the Arab. â€Å"That evening, Marie came round for me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said I didn’t mind and we could do if she wanted to† (Camus 44). However, the idea that things sometimes happen for no reason is disturbing and threatening to society, because, as a logical conclusion from that, individual existence could have happened for no reason and would therefore be purposeless. Hence, society always attempts to find logical reasons for everything. In this novel, society superimposes its rational nature upon Meursault’s irrational character, which has the consequence of society making judgements upon Meursault that are false, because the judgements do not agree with his irrational personality. The prosecutor’s speech and the meetings between the magistrate and Meursault will be used as examples to show this. Before getting into them, it must be explained that the prosecutor and the magistrate both symbolize society, since they are part of the court, which stands for society as a whole. The idea of a court already represents very much society, since the law functions as the will of the people, and the jury sits in judgement on behalf of the entire community. But Camus clearly emphasizes upon this image of â€Å"court-as-society† in this novel by making almost all of the characters from the first half reappear to witness in the trial: The warden and the caretaker from the home, Thomas Pà ©rez, Raymond, Masson, Salamano, Marie and Cà ©leste. First of all, the fact that the prosecutor interprets Meursault’s irrational action of killing the Arab in a rational way shows that society imposes its rational character upon Meursault’s irrational personality. â€Å"[Meursault retelling the prosecutor’s argument] I’d asked him for his gun. I’d gone back with the intention of using it. I’d shot the Arab as I’d planned. I’d waited. And ‘to make sure I’d done the job properly’, I’d fired four more shots, deliberately and at point-blank range and with some kind of forethought† (96). The prosecutor provides here a rational explanation for Meursault’s murder of the Arab, that is, he explains how every step that lead to the murder was planned by Meursault. However, nothing in Meursault’s narrative explains why he shot the Arab (let alone that there would be evidence in his narrative that he planned the murder), which suggests that there is no rational explanation for his action. Thus, the fact that the prosecutor, who represents society, interprets here Meursault’s