Part Two: Chapter 5
[F]or the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. . . . For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.
After his trial, Meursault only cares about escaping the “machinery of justice” that has condemned him to death. The newspapers characterize the situation of a condemned man in terms of a “debt owed to society,” but Meursault believes the only thing that matters is the possibility of an escape to freedom. He remembers his mother telling him how his father once forced himself to watch an execution. Afterward, Meursault’s father vomited several times. Now, Meursault thinks an execution is really the only thing of interest for a man. He only wishes he could be a spectator instead of the victim. He fantasizes about a combination of chemicals that would kill the condemned only nine times out of ten, because then at least he would have a chance of surviving.
Meursault also dislikes the fact that the guillotine forces the condemned to hope that the execution works on the first try. If the first attempt fails, the execution will be painful. Hence, the prisoner is forced into “moral collaboration” with the execution process, by hoping for its success. He further objects to the fact that the guillotine is mounted on the ground, not on a scaffold. The condemned is killed “with a little shame and with great precision.” Meursault counts himself lucky every time dawn passes without the sound of footsteps approaching his cell, because he knows that such footsteps would signal the arrival of the men who will take him to his execution. When he considers the option of filing a legal appeal, Meursault initially assumes the worst, believing any appeal would be denied. Only after considering the fact that everyone dies eventually does he allow himself to consider the possibility of a pardon and freedom. Whenever he thinks of this possibility, he feels delirious joy.
Against Meursault’s wishes, the chaplain visits and asks why Meursault has refused to see him. Meursault reasserts his denial of God’s existence. When the chaplain states that Meursault’s attitude results from “extreme despair,” Meursault says he is afraid, not desperate. The chaplain insists that all the condemned men he has known have eventually turned to God for comfort. Meursault becomes irritated by the chaplain’s insistence that he spend the rest of his life thinking about God. He feels he has no time to waste with God. The chaplain tells Meursault that his “heart is blind.”
Meursault suddenly becomes enraged. He shouts that nothing matters, and that nothing in the chaplain’s beliefs is as certain as the chaplain thinks. The only certainty Meursault perceives in the whole of human existence is death. In the course of his outburst, Meursault grabs the chaplain. After the guards separate them, Meursault realizes why his mother started her little romance with Thomas Perez. She lived in the midst of fading lives, so she chose to play at living life over again. He believes crying over her would simply be an insult to her. Meursault has finally shed any glimmer of hope, so he opens himself to the “gentle indifference of the world.” His only hope is that there will be a crowd of angry spectators at his execution who will greet him “with cries of hate.”
While awaiting his execution, Meursault takes the final step in the development of his consciousness. Whereas during his trial Meursault passively observed the judgments leveled against him, in prison he begins to ponder the fact of his inevitable death. He begins to see his life as having a past, present, and future, and concludes that there is no difference between dying soon by execution and dying decades later of natural causes. This capacity for self-analysis is a new development for Meursault, and it contrasts greatly with his level of self-awareness earlier in the novel.
Once Meursault dismisses his perceived difference between execution and natural death, he must deal with the concept of hope. Hope only tortures him, because it creates the false illusion that he can change the fact of his death. The leap of hope he feels at the idea of having another twenty years of life prevents him from making the most of his final days or hours. Hope disturbs his calm and understanding, and prevents him from fully coming to grips with his situation.
After speaking with the chaplain, Meursault no longer views his impending execution with hope or despair. He accepts death as an inevitable fact and looks forward to it with peace. This realization of death’s inevitability constitutes Meursault’s triumph over society. Expressing remorse over his crime would implicitly acknowledge the murder as wrong, and Meursault’s punishment as justified. However, Meursault’s lack of concern about his death sentence implies that his trial and conviction were pointless exercises. Moreover, Meursault accepts that his views make him an enemy and stranger to society. Meursault anticipates that his position in relation to society will be affirmed when crowds cheer hatefully at him as he is beheaded. Meursault’s eager anticipation of this moment shows he is content being an outsider.
In his heightened state of consciousness prior to his execution, Meursault says that he comes to recognize the “gentle indifference of the world.” Meursault decides that, like him, the world does not pass judgment, nor does it rationally order or control the events of human existence. Yet Meursault does not despair at this fact. Instead, he draws from it a kind of freedom. Without the need for false hope or illusions of order and meaning, Meursault feels free to live a simpler, less burdened life.
by I dont need a bluddy nick name, March 21, 2013
This Spark Note describes Meursault as being amoral. I completely disagree with this interpretation. It is not that Meursault does not understand right and wrong but rather that his ideas of right and wrong differ from those of society. This different moral code can be seen by the way he refuses to break his own morals. He may not value life but he does value honesty and his disbelief in a higher being. Throughout the book he never lies or pretends to have faith in God not even to save his life. His specific moral code is founded in Camus` ... Read more→
92 out of 103 people found this helpful1
by dmborong, April 11, 2013
Albert Camus' idea of morality in 'The Stranger' is completely unconventional and this can be seen through the protagonist who is a total embarrassment to the society in which he finds himself. This disparity between what is expected of Meursault and what he displays forms the basis of Albert Camus' philosophy of morality. There is a big question mark on conventional morality which the author finds to be absurd. He seems to be questioning the fabric of societal morality on grounds of motivation; are some of those values upheld merely for con... Read more→
15 out of 17 people found this helpful0
by OverseasTeacher, April 29, 2013
Morality is simply the way that an individual chooses between opposing values in a given situation.
So, lets say "Prolife" vs "Prochoice" as a moral issue. Regardless of your position, you are pushing values. The question isn't "is a fetus valuable?" or "is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body valuable?"
The vast majority of the world would answer yes to both. No, the question is... "which is more valuable if you can't have both?"
In this way, morality requires an active decision making.
This is wher