No Remorse: People, Society, and Institutions
No Remorse: People, Society, and Institutions
No Remorse: People, Society, and Institutions
Humanities 01
Section 6, “No Remorse”
Neal Pisenti
Professor McKinney
I. Introduction
This year, our class explored the theme, “No Remorse.” Through novels on topics
as disparate as the Rwandan Genocide and murder in French Algeria, we came across
characters from all walks of life who share a common trait, namely, a failure to
experience remorse for their actions. I begin my study of this theme with an examination
of an individual instance remorselessness in the memoir The Glass Castle. This study
the remorseless entity. Finally, I examine the consequences of living in a culture where
In these essays, I attempt to discover the effects of “no remorse” on the individual and on
society, thereby investigating how humanity copes when faced with the unregretful.
where the parents remorselessly fail to exhibit appropriate responsibility in caring for
their children. Despite her best efforts to get them to work, Jeannette’s mother and father
would prefer to live in squalor than provide for their family. As a result, Jeannette and
her siblings are forced quite early in life to assume the responsibilities neglected by their
parents. Managing bills, working to put food on the table, and maintaining the upkeep of
the house are just a few of the responsibilities thrust on Jeannette. In my essay, I argue
that there is a reversal of roles in the family. As Jeannette matures, her parents sink into
immaturity, but the ultimate result is that each person ends up with a life they enjoy.
Pisenti 2
of choice in one’s life and what a loss of choice means for our humanity. In A Clockwork
Orange, the main character Alex and his gang of droogs go on repeated rampages of
violence throughout the town. In an effort to curb this gang violence, the government
decides to test a new treatment on Alex which would remove his ability to choose to be
violent. I argue that this loss of choice is tantamount to a loss of humanity, and that our
ability to decide between good and evil is the defining characteristic of what it means to
be human.
Entitled “Meursault: The Second Coming,” this paper explores how religion has become
corrupted and perverted in the novel. The main character Meursault lives his life
immersed in the present without much concern for the future, but a chain of absurd events
leads him to a beach in French Algeria where he shoots an Arab man. Being a member of
the privileged white class, Meursault could have easily gotten away with his crime.
However, he is convicted and sentenced to death more on the grounds that he did not cry
at his mother’s funeral than for his actual crime. On the eve of his execution, he stands
by his beliefs and adamantly refuses to accept Jesus Christ or any hope for life after
death. In this act, he likens himself to Christ in that he is crucified for his beliefs. I argue
that his death exposes the flaws in religion as portrayed in The Stranger.
When I look back at my first essay, I can see many areas where I have since
improved. The first thesis I wrote was terribly simplistic, and only with repeated revision
was I able to get it into its current state. My second and third papers, however, show a
Pisenti 3
progression in the complexity of the ideas that frame their argumentation. I have also
improved the way I structure and organize my paragraphs to better argue my point.
Humanities one, aside from providing a good opportunity to improve my writing, has
also provided a forum for the discussion of ideas and the appreciation of literature. The
novels and books we read were very thought provoking, and I thoroughly enjoyed the
conversations we had in class. On the whole, Humanities one was a very positive
II.
Jeannette Walls, in her memoir The Glass Castle, traces her life from early
childhood into adulthood with a less than typical family and eccentric parents. Her
father, Rex Walls, is a confident ne’er-do-well who cannot hold a job, and her mother,
Rose Mary, would rather paint than care for her children. As the memoir progresses, the
roles of “parent” and “child” become reversed in the Walls household, ultimately
allowing both the parents and the children to lead lives they can be happy with.
As a young child, Jeannette Walls shows deference to her parents’ authority and
follows their leadership through the events of her life. The book begins with Jeannette’s
earliest memory, making hot dogs at age three. Unsupervised by her parents, she catches
fire and is rushed to the hospital where the doctors insist that “[she] was lucky to be
alive” (10). Unalarmed by this assessment, Jeannette claims, “‘Mom says I’m mature for
my age…and she lets me cook for myself a lot’” (11). The nurse then writes something
on her clipboard, causing Jeannette to ask what is wrong. The act of asking if there is a
assumes undoubtedly that her mother knows what is best for her children when obviously
it was her negligence that led to Jeannette’s injury. Another example of Jeannette’s
deference to her parents’ leadership occurs when her dad tries to check her out of the
hospital “Rex Walls style,” i.e. without permission or paying (14). Uncertain at first, she
says, “‘Are you sure this is okay?’” but her dad tells her to trust him and proceeds to
unhook Jeannette’s arm from its sling and run her out of the hospital past the nurses’ calls
Pisenti 5
to stop (14). Jeannette does not think to fundamentally question or challenge whether her
father is doing the right thing for her health, because at this age she trusts his judgment
and follows his leadership. There is a clear parent-child division in their relationship as
Jeannette acts the perfect, unquestioning child and her father plays the role of parental
leader. Her respect for Rex and Rose Mary’s authority clearly shows where the role of
As Jeannette gets older, the roles begin to reverse as the burden of responsibility
shifts from parent to child. After moving to the town of Welch, West Virginia, basic
survival defaults to Jeannette and her siblings. For example, Jeannette recounts one
winter when “Dad wasn’t around to chop and split any [wood], which meant it was up to
us kids to gather dead branches and logs from the forest” (175). The family needs to stay
warm to survive, yet Rex and Rose Mary’s lack of initiative causes this responsibility to
shift to their children. As a result, Jeannette ends up playing the mature adult in caring
for her family’s survival. She also assumes responsibility for the upkeep of their house,
and even says directly that, “since [our parents] never repaired it, we kids tried patching
the roof on our own with tar paper, tin foil, wood, and Elmer’s glue” (153). Although
these implements are distinctly childlike in nature, it is clear that Jeannette and her
siblings are trying, to the best of their abilities, to take on the responsibilities thrown off
by their parents. The roles of parent and child are already beginning to reverse as
leadership and lose faith in her parents as people of responsibility and moral fiber. For
Pisenti 6
example, Jeannette comes home from school one day to find that money has been stolen
from her and her sister’s piggy bank. She says, “I knew it was Dad, but at the same time,
I couldn’t believe he’d stoop this low” (228). Her incredulity shows that she used to
believe in the her father’s integrity, but her certainty that he was the one who stole the
money indicates that she now is able to see past the smoke and mirrors of her father’s
fickle honesty. Another example demonstrating Jeannette’s lost faith in her father occurs
in Welch when her dad tries to borrow money she has budgeted for food and bills. He
says, “‘Don’t worry about food and bills…Have I ever let you down?’” (210). Jeannette
then thinks to herself, “I’d heard that question at least two hundred times, and I’d always
answered it the way I knew he wanted me to…[but] I was about to tell him the truth for
the first time, about to let him know that he’d let us all down plenty” (210). At this point
in the novel, Jeannette has stopped fooling herself and no longer believes in her father or
the infallibility of his leadership. She realizes that Rex has let her down and failed her as
a parent, and no longer views him as a responsible adult. Jeannette is forced to assume
the de facto role of parent as she realizes the fundamental lack of leadership in Rex and
life, further developing the picture of Jeannette as the adult and her parents as the
children. A crowning event in her path towards adult-like maturity comes when Rose
Charleston. This leaves Jeannette, “at thirteen, the head of the household” (209). For the
first time, Jeannette has taken on the official title, “head of the house,” which evokes the
Pisenti 7
image of a responsible parent. This image is reinforced when her father asks her to
borrow some money and she replies, “‘I’ve got bills piling up…I’ve got kids to feed’”
(210). The fact that her father must come to her to get money, much as a child would,
shows how the function of “parent” has landed on Jeannette’s shoulders. Additionally,
her rationale for not wanting to lend her father money is distinctly parental in nature; she
has the responsibility to pay bills and feed “the kids” who are not even hers. Clearly, the
duty of the parent is picked up by Jeannette as her actual parents avoid responsibility in
The reversal in the roles of “parent” and “child” eventually becomes complete
when the family moves piecemeal to New York. After completing high school, Jeannette
leaves Welch to join her sister, Lori, in the city. Her brother Brian soon follows, after
which Jeannette and her siblings send for Maureen, the youngest of the Walls children, to
come live with them as well. Jeanette describes how, “using [Brian’s] address, we
enrolled Maureen in a good public school in Manhattan” (251). At this point, they are
completely self-sufficient and even have enough foresight to enroll Maureen in a good
school, displaying the adult-like maturity absent in Jeannette’s parents. Eventually, her
parents decide to move to New York too in order to be a family again. However, Rex and
Rose Mary soon fall behind on rent and get kicked out of apartment after apartment.
Feeling sorry for them, Lori lets them stay with her and Maureen. There is now a
complete reversal in roles and responsibility; the children pay for the rent and food while
the parents live off of their children’s income. Ultimately, Lori becomes fed up with her
parents’ lack of cleanliness and respect for her rules, and at Jeannette’s urging she kicks
Pisenti 8
them out of her apartment. Much like a parent who has grown tired of providing for her
twenty-five year old college graduate, Lori forces her parents out of her house and urges
them to provide for themselves. Rex and Rose Mary, however, decide to be homeless.
This new status quo meets the needs of both Jeannette and her parents, allowing
everyone to be happy leading the life they choose. Jeannette describes how she and her
siblings felt unburdened upon moving to New York and taking charge of their lives, to the
point where they sit around at dinner, “laughing so hard at the idea of all that craziness
[in Welch] that [their] eyes water” (251). The fact that they can genuinely laugh at their
past misery indicates that they are finally enjoying life enough to look lightly on previous
suffering. Similarly, her parents seem happy with their life on the street. Jeannette offers
several times to help them, yet each time they refuse, saying they are fine with their
situation in life. At the end of the memoir, Jeannette comes to terms with the fact that her
parents are living the life they want to lead, free of responsibility, and realizes that they
have “finally found the place where they belong” (268). Although unorthodox in the
reversed roles they assume, both Jeannette and her parents find their respective places in
life.
Through this reversal of roles, Jeannette and her parents eventually find the
lifestyles that makes them happiest. Rex and Rose Mary were never equipped to handle
the responsibility of having children, and at the end of the memoir they can finally live a
carefree life free of the burden of responsibility. Throughout their childhood, Jeannette
and her siblings yearned for a steady source of food and roof over their head. Ultimately,
they fulfill this yearning by discovering the responsibility so conspicuously absent from
Pisenti 9
their upbringing. In the end, everyone ends up happy because they find the lifestyle to
III.
crime, rape, and destruction as he follows the path of Alex, a teenager caught up in the
created a reverse-pavlovian treatment that will “cure” people of their violent tendencies,
and the state tells Alex he can either spend many years in jail or undergo this treatment.
Choosing the latter, Alex is “cured,” but loses the freedom to decide how to live his life.
Alex and other characters in the novel demonstrate aspects of both culture and “ultra-
violence,” advancing the idea that the freedom to decide between the good and bad in
showing himself at some moments to be cultured while at other times to be brutish and
cruel. The story begins with a series of ultra-violent scenes, setting the tone for an
interpretation of Alex’s character. Within the first few pages, Alex and his droogs find an
old man carrying books under his arm. They begin to harass him, stomping on his
dentures and “pull[ing] his outer platties off, stripping him down to his vest and long
underpants and then…kick[ing] him lovely in his pot” (10). This scene demonstrates
Alex’s wanton violence, as the man did nothing to offend anyone, yet he is still assaulted,
stripped of his clothes, and badly beaten. Another example demonstrating Alex’s violent
nature occurs when he and his gang break into a writer’s house in the country. After
completely wrecking the writer’s living room and destroying the manuscript he was
Pisenti 11
working on, they beat him and tie him up, forcing him to watch as they rape his wife.
Alex says,
Plunging, I could slooshy cries of agony and this writer bleeding veck that
Georgie and Pete held on to nearly got loose howling bezoomny with the filthiest
of slovos…[we then left, but] the writer veck and his zheena were not really there,
bloody and torn and making noises. But they’d live. (22)
This scene is graphic and extremely violent, demonstrating Alex’s full capacity for
savagery and destruction. It is later revealed that the woman they raped died of shock,
completing the picture of brutality and cruelty Alex inflicts on others. The portrayal of
these ultra-violent images characterizes Alex as almost sub-human in the way he treats
This cruelty is contrasted with other moments in the novel when Alex’s violence
is blended with culture. When speaking, Alex occasionally drops the slang he uses in
favor of a more proper mode of speech. For example, in the scene where he and his
droogs beat up Billyboy, he says, “‘Well, if it isn’t fat stinking billygoat Billyboy…How
art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap stinking chipoil?’” (16). The diction in this quote is
reminiscent of Shakespeare, utilizing “art thou” instead of the more common “are you.”
Even the insult is vaguely Shakespearian in its seemingly nonsensical nature. Because it
would be uncommon for an ordinary person to use such formal speech, this immediately
conjures an image of culture and education, yet it is strikingly at odds with the violent act
blending of Alex’s violent nature with images of culture to create a more complex
character.
The novel furthers this hybrid characterization with the motif of classical music.
After that first night of rape and destruction, Alex and his droogs go back to a bar and are
listening to an opera singer perform Gitterfenster’s “Das Bettzeug.” Dim, one of Alex’s
gang members, makes a rude comment about the music. Alex then punches Dim, “‘for
being a bastard with no manners and not the nook of an idea how to comport [him]self
publicwise’” (25). From this statement, it is clear that Alex has a sense of “manners” and
aggressive response to Dim’s comment blends his proper and violent aspects. Another
indication of Alex’s culture can be seen in his preference for classical music. Alex listens
to masters such as “Ludwig van” instead of “The Heaven Seventeen,” “Luke Sterne,” or
other pop-hits for his age group (37). This choice of music conveys a sense of culture
and refinement one would not expect from someone demonstrably steeped in violence.
However, the novel blurs the line between this cultured music and violence in the way
Beethoven’s 9th is associated with the horrific Nazi movies in Alex’s treatment. Not only
is Alex’s character a mix of violence and culture, but music, his defining motif, also
exhibits these same characteristics. Once again, culture and violence are blended in A
Clockwork Orange, making it hard for the reader to determine which of the two
These two opposite aspects of Alex’s character create the idea that he contains
both the capacity to see good and to commit evil. The last movement of Beethoven’s 9th
Pisenti 13
Symphony, the famous “Ode to Joy” chorus, is repeatedly referenced in the novel. Its
beautifully joyful and triumphant tone imparts a message of happiness in its lyrics, a
message made clear when Alex listens to the movement after bringing two ten year old
Then I pulled the lovely Ninth out of its sleeve, so that Ludwig van was no nagoy
too, and I set the needle hissing on to the last movement, which was all bliss.
There it was then…the male human goloss [chorus] coming in and telling them all
to be joyful, and then the lovely blissful tune all about Joy being a glorious spark
like of heaven, and then I felt the old tigers leap in me and then I leapt on these
Alex sees the truth in the music and recognizes the message of joy and happiness as a
“spark like of heaven,” an eternal truth. Yet then, without even pausing to start a new
sentence, he is taken over by the “old tigers” in him and compelled to rape the two ten
year olds. This neatly encapsulates how, in the same thought, Alex can see something as
true and beautiful as joy and happiness yet digress instantly to the other aspect of his
character and commit acts of violence. The novel clouds the line between the divine
“spark of heaven” in the music and the horrible acts it incites Alex to commit. This mix
shows that Alex contains the capacity for both the good and the bad, and his actions just
The hybridization of good and bad is also manifested by other characters in the
novel. One example occurs in the third section when Alex sees the man with the books
he assaulted at the beginning of the story. They are at the library, and the man calls to his
Pisenti 14
friends, saying, “‘Kill him [Alex], stamp on him, murder him, kick his teeth in[!]’” (114).
Several ninety year old scholars then try to assault Alex. “Scholar” usually evokes the
image of a peaceful, wise old person who is not prone to acts of violence. Yet several
scholars beat Alex up and call for his death at the library, a place typically symbolizing
quiet and order. Even in these men who traditionally stand for peace and decorum, there
exists a capacity for malice. Burgess uses this contrast to demonstrate the sheer capacity
for violence present in all parts of the human spectrum, from Alex the violent criminal to
the supposedly peaceful scholars. Furthermore, F. Alexander, the man whose wife Alex
brutally raped, is portrayed at some moments as a kind old man and at other times as a
psychopath. In the third section, F. Alexander unknowingly takes Alex into his home as
an honored guest after his assault at the library. Alex describes how F. Alexander calls
him down to breakfast, “full of joy and love and all that cal,” conjuring the image of an
old man caring for his grandchild (124). This loving benevolence soon evaporates when
F. Alexander discovers that Alex raped his wife. Alex explains how he saw this “madness
in F. Alexander’s glazzies [eyes]” before F. Alexander goes completely insane with rage
(129). Once kind towards Alex, F. Alexander now wants to do him harm. Within each
character, there is a conflict and blending between the propensity to do good and the
temptation to do bad.
This juxtaposition of the good and the bad creates a contradiction, but Alex’s
narration reveals that the choice between them is what defines our humanity. The first
glimpse of this resolution arises during the demonstration of Alex’s treatment. The prison
chaplain is the only one to speak out, saying, “‘He has no real choice, has he? …
Pisenti 15
choice’” (99). The chaplain sees that the treatment has taken away something of Alex’s
humanity. By removing the ability to choose between good and bad, the government has
effectively taken away moral choice. Humans are moral agents by definition; what
differentiates us from animals is that we make choices based on our morals instead of
inbred instinct. When Alex is forced to make decisions for reasons akin to instinct,
he is denigrated to the status of animal (99). His actions have no relation to rational or
moral choice, and the response of the chaplain mirrors this evaluation. The chaplain’s
tone is one of disgust, and because Alex is such a violent criminal, disgust with the
government and sympathy for Alex could only arise through something as dramatic as a
loss of humanity. Choice is crucial because, as the chaplain implies, without choice we
have lost our ability to reason morally and hence cease to possess that important aspect of
our being.
In the final chapter, the government reverses Alex’s treatment so he is able to once
again make the moral, rational choice between a life of good and a life of evil, thereby
salvaging his humanity. Despite the fact that Alex’s violent tendencies make him a threat
to society, he regains his right to make moral choices. This shows that in the novel, the
ability to choose is more important to humanity than eliminating all chance of crime. In
the last few pages, Alex sees one of his old droogs, Pete, and learns that he is married and
living a peaceful, lawful life with a job at an insurance company. Realizing that he too
can make a choice between the good and bad in himself, Alex begins to desire
Pisenti 16
a life similar to Pete’s. He makes a moral choice, exercising that basic aspect of
humanity, and selects his potential for good over the bad which had thus far dominated
Fundamentally, each person in the novel possesses the potential for good but often
a predilection to commit evil. What Burgess ultimately tries to convey is that it is the
choice between these competing compulsions that makes us human. When Alex loses his
ability to make a moral choice, he also loses the ability to express his humanity, whether
for good or for evil. Yet, as the ending reveals, giving him the chance to choose restores
his humanity and ultimately leads to the embrace of the “spark of heaven” he sees in
Ludwig van’s glorious Ninth. Good, as they say, will win out if given the chance.
Pisenti 17
IV.
during World War II and a native of French Algeria, he saw his fair share of injustice in
the Nazi rule and occupation as well as in the way Arabs were oppressed in their
homeland. It was in this environment that he developed his philosophy and subsequently
wrote The Stranger, a novel toying with the idea of what our role should be as humans in
the world and where we fall in a divine milieu.1 In The Stranger, these themes are played
out through the trial and execution of the main character Meursault, as well as through
preface to his novel, Camus describes how he tried to portray Meursault as “the only
who does not understand him. This portrayal is an indictment of religion and exposes
Pisenti 18
1
Camus also wrote two seminal essays, entitled “The Myth of Sisyphus” and “The Rebel,” which deal with
this theme as well. It is safe to say that Camus was deeply troubled by religion. Raised a Catholic, he
quickly turned away from the precepts of religion later in life. The issue of a benevolent, omnipotent God
is at the root of his philosophical problem with religion. Acutely aware of his surroundings, Camus
recognized a world steeped in suffering and saw the obvious contradiction with a God who is at the same
time all powerful and all good. Camus posits his “absurd man” in response to this paradox. Essentially, the
absurd man rejects God based on the suffering present in the world, and places the responsibility to
alleviate such suffering on humanity’s shoulders. The obvious corollary to this definition of the absurd
man is that while the Christian believes suffering in this world brings a good life in the next, the absurd
man tries to live a good life in this world because there is no guarantee of a better life to come (Loose 207).
This philosophical idea shaped Camus’ writing in The Stranger.
2
Camus quoted in Sherman, pg. 63
The Stranger follows a series of absurd events in the life of its oddly distant
narrator, Meursault. Beginning with the death and funeral of his mother, the novel
neighbor Raymond and girlfriend Marie. At the end of the first section, Meursault finds
himself on a beach where, without provocation, he shoots an Arab who had earlier
threatened Raymond. In the second section, Camus traces the progress of Meursault’s
trial. Paradoxically, he is convicted more for failing to cry at his mother’s funeral than
for his real crime of murder. Facing execution, Meursault has a revealing conversation
with the prison Chaplain in which he refuses to admit belief in God, valiantly flying into
the face of death without hope for an afterlife. Occurring at the climax of the novel, this
scene reveals the religious undertones of the story and is the focus of this essay.
Camus describes Meursault outright as “a man who, without any heroics, accepts death
for the sake of truth,” and “is paradoxically…the only Christ we deserve” (Camus quoted
in Sherman 63). The parallels to Jesus’ crucifixion are striking. Both men go willingly to
deaths rather than renounce their beliefs. Jesus was crucified by the Romans for being a
threat to the order of life, just as Meursault is convicted and sentenced to death for “not
behaving as others do” (Masters 29). Additionally, Meursault is arguably the most honest
man in the novel. At times, his narration can come across as disinterested and almost
emotionally dead. For example, the novel opens with the statement, “Maman died today.
detachment, but it is actually an extreme fidelity to his emotions. Rather than displaying
Pisenti 19
the expected grief, Meursault describes his feelings just as they are, without
embellishment. Louis Hudon describes how Camus “does not try to render the entire
moments of life, penetrate and rise to the surface of consciousness” (63). The only
elements of Meursault’s character exposed in the text are those that are absolutely true to
what he is feeling, those that “penetrate and rise to the surface” of his consciousness.
Because the other characters in the novel do not exhibit this fundamental faithfulness to
their emotions, Camus has set Meursault apart in honesty to himself, mirroring Christ’s
famed honesty. At his trial, Meursault refuses to betray his emotions and tell a story that
would have certainly exonerated him. In this act, he is giving himself up to conviction
and death for the sake of the truth, much as Jesus Christ did in Roman times.
The diction in the novel is also reminiscent of Christ, further drawing the parallels
between the two. At the end of the novel, Meursault undergoes an almost Christ-like
revelation, suddenly realizing that life must be lived for its own sake without concern for
alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators at the day of my
execution and that they greet me with cries of hate” (123). As Hudon describes, the
parallel between Meursault and a Christ figure is evident from the diction and imagery in
this passage (61). “Consummated” has a Christian, religious overtone. Additionally, the
image of people greeting Meursault’s death with cries of hate parallels the manner in
which Jesus was greeted by crowds of non-believers. Meursault also mirrors the
Pisenti 20
and untouched by Original Sin” (28). This child-like innocence can be seen in the way
Meursault fearlessly tells the truth about his emotions with no concept of the harm that
will befall him by doing so. Another example of Meursault’s innocence occurs when he
realizes, extremely late in his trial, “how much all these people hated [him]” and that
“[he] was guilty” (90). Up until that point, Meursault lives in a state of complete
innocence and ignorance of his guilt or the animosity of others. Much like Christ, he
possesses innocence but is rooted out by society and crushed as a threat to their way of
life. In portraying Meursault as a Christ figure, Camus has given the novel divine weight
The ironic similarity between Meursault and Christ arises in the purpose of their
for the sins of humanity, and in his resurrection provides proof of a divine entity. Donald
Lazere relates that Camus, in his essay “Myth of Sisyphus,”3 talks about how the
“Antichrist…will kill himself explicitly to deny the existence of God and immortality,
thus freeing men of their delusions” (158). Meursault, even called “Monsieur Antichrist”
by the examining magistrate, represents this aim of freeing man from his divine delusions
(Camus 71). He flatly denies the existence of God and heaven, and just like the
religion (Camus 123). It follows that while Meursault exhibits many similarities to Jesus
Christ, he fundamentally represents the death of religion rather than its birth. The
portrayal of Meursault as a Christ figure, although paradoxical, lends power to the novel
Pisenti 21
3
According to Masters, the “Myth of Sisyphus” is a philosophical commentary on The Stranger and
represents the hard philosophical reasoning behind The Stranger’s literary ideas.
as Camus explores an alternative to religion. Ultimately, the absurd man represented by
Meursault provides the basis for a new existence free of religious hypocrisy.
In his writings, Camus not only questions God’s existence but also tries to provide
an alternative framework from which humanity can derive its morals. In a world of
suffering, Camus believed that man must find his values in life itself and not in an unjust,
divine being. John Loose describes Camus as a man “crying out for a life in which
values are available within the scope of human action and history” (207). In other words,
human values should not be based upon supernatural origin or belief in an afterlife,
because the only certain truth is living a good life now. Camus developed his philosophy
Meursault is shaped by this philosophy and transformed into the Christ of Camus’ new
morality.
Camus explores the alternatives to religion and its hypocrisy through several
themes, the first being capital punishment. Vehemently against the death penalty, Camus
wrote several essays including “Reflections on the Guillotine” to argue against its use in
punishment” in that its moral justification comes from the fact that the executioners
believe they are not delivering a final sentence, but instead deferring judgment to God
during the second coming (Camus, “Reflections” 444). Problems arise, however, when
the death penalty is imposed on an atheist or agnostic who does not share the same
certainty that true judgment is yet to come. Meursault falls into this category, repeatedly
refusing to profess a belief in God because such a profession would be dishonest and
Pisenti 22
contrary to his convictions. Illustrating this point, Meursault says, “According to [the
chaplain], human justice was nothing and divine justice was everything. I pointed out
that it was the former that had condemned me” (118). This shows how in Meursault’s
worldview, the religious social institution has effectively assumed the throne of God and
passed a sentence with god-like finality. When the society’s Holy Scripture preaches
“Thou shalt not kill,” this ultimate death sentence represents a clear hypocrisy of morals.
Also, paradoxically, what the executioner sees as a way to defer judgment to God is to the
absurd man a final death sentence. This paradox and hypocrisy are the foundations of
The issues of life after death and Camus’ alternative, humanistic optimism, are
Meursault to take God into his heart, the chaplain says, “I know that at one time or
another you’ve wished for another life,” to which Meursault responds that wanting
another life “didn’t mean any more than wishing to be rich, to be able to swim faster, or
to have a more nicely shaped mouth” (119). Meursault can see that wishing for another
life does not change the cards dealt to him, just as nothing would to come of wishing for
a “more nicely shaped mouth.” Instead of giving up on the life he has, Meursault is
optimistic about the world irrespective of what happens after death. This optimism, as
James Woelfel states, is symbolized by the “invincible sun” (125). In The Stranger,
Meursault is constantly motivated by the potency of the sun, an image which recurs in
virtually every scene. This powerful symbol represents the driving force in Meursault’s
Pisenti 23
life, namely, humanistic optimism about our condition in the world, and encapsulates the
live without hope for heaven in favor of a better life now. During his epiphany in the
final scene of the novel, Meursault realizes that hope in the Christian sense is pointless.
He says, “Blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope…,” language which is
consciousness style in this section lends it a certain power, ironically much like a divine
revelation. In his revelation, Meursault is literally “washed clean” of his sin, namely,
hope for a pardon, and is then able to accept in himself the “gentle indifference” of a
world which does not trouble itself with the fate of man (122). As Rik Van Nieuwenhove
paraphrased from the “Myth of Sisyphus,” “We must live without hope, without
consolations, [and] without illusions” (347). Camus wants us to exist without any false
hope or illusions about an afterlife, and actually live for life’s sake instead of living only
to be rewarded in a life to come. Meursault does just this, as his existence is deeply
rooted in the physical experiences of the world, and admits to the chaplain that the
question of God is “unimportant” (Camus 116). As Woelfel put it, Camus challenges us
to live “creatively, courageously, and happily ‘without appeal’ beyond meanings and
values derived solely from our human condition in the world” (138). In other words, the
human condition itself should give life meaning without the need for a divine being. This
Pisenti 24
The “crucifixion” of Meursault is used to highlight the flaws in religion and
In the act of crucifixion, there is a role reversal in which the Christians are no longer the
victims. Instead, they assume the title of crucifier, putting an atheist to death for
following his conscience just as the Romans put Jesus to death for following his. As
discussed above, the verdict they pronounce has an air of finality that should be left to
God, and in that verdict they have hypocritically overstepped their self-proclaimed roles
as humans under divine rule. The resolution provided by Camus to this religious
hypocrisy involves deriving meaning from human solidarity in our condition here on
between the “meaning-creating being we are and the indifference of the universe into
which we are ‘thrown’” (98). At the end of The Stranger, Meursault comes to terms with
this “gentle indifference of the world” and subsequently finds that he “had been happy
and…was happy again” (122-123). His realization of the world’s indifference to human
suffering indicates that there is no godly being looking over the fates of every human in
existence. Our job as humans, Meursault realizes, is to find happiness in actually living
life without hope for a life to come, because in his world every piece of evidence points
away from a God concerned with human affairs and towards His non-existence.
Meursault is willing to die for this truth because unlike others in the novel, he has lived
up to its precepts and hence his life has not been meaningless.
Realizing that he had been happy allows Meursault to face death, but unlike the
other characters, Meursault can meet his end without the promises of eternal life afforded
Pisenti 25
by religion. Masters describes how “paradoxically, [Meursault] can face death now,
because he has realized how much he loves life; the chaplain, on the other hand, who is
already ‘dead’, does not love life—he prefers to wish for something better” (32). In
discovering that he loves life, Meursault finds that it is okay to die because he has
actually lived, whereas the Christian would say it is all right to die because there is a life
after this one. Camus tries to show that the Christian approach leads to the disastrous
paradox and hypocrisy discussed above. In The Stranger, the act of believing that there is
a second life to come leads one to easily neglect this life and devalue the severity of ones
actions as they relate to issues such as capital punishment. Meursault’s manner of living
fully in the present is the alternative Camus presents to living for an unknown God.
Camus summarizes this act in “The Rebel.” He says, “There is, in fact, a god…namely
the world. To participate in his divinity, all that is necessary is to consent” (106). That is
exactly what Meursault does in his very physical existence, yet the other characters refuse
to participate, preferring to hope for an elusive afterlife. To see that the way of religion in
The Stranger is flawed, one need not look further than the Magistrate’s plea, “Do you
want my life to be meaningless?” (69). If the disbelief of a single person can render one’s
life meaningless, then it is time to trade in religion for a more humanistic approach and
The paradox of his trial, namely, that he was convicted for insensitivity at his mother’s
funeral instead of for murdering a man, as well as the hypocritical way in which a
religious society delivers a final death sentence, point to the necessity of such a new
Pisenti 26
order. Meursault is quite literally “The Stranger” in his own land, alienated from society
by his recognition of the indifference of the world to human suffering. Realizing the
way of life and embrace the inevitability of death as a reason to live life now. In that
respect, Meursault’s character truly does represent the Second Coming of Christ.
Pisenti 27
V. Works Cited
Camus, Albert. “The Rebel: Metaphysical Rebellion” in Philosophy and Religion: Some
Walter Kaufmann, Editor. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1961.
Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Translated by Matthew Ward. New York, NY:
Hudon, Louis. “The Stranger and the Critics.” Yale French Studies 25 (1960): 59-64.
Lazere, Donald. The Unique Creation of Albert Camus. New Haven, Connecticut:
Loose, John. “The Christian as Camus’s Absurd Man.” The Journal of Religion
Masters, Brian. Camus: a study. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974.
Van Nieuwenhove, Rik. “Albert Camus, Simone Weil and the Absurd.”
Walls, Jeannette. The Glass Castle: A Memoir. New York: Scribner, 2006.