The role of judgement in The Outsider

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. “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 “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 Pérez, Raymond, Masson, Salamano, Marie and Céleste.

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. “[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