Lee 1

Lani Lee

Dr. Gardner, Mr. Tatnall

Ethics

10 May 2017

Nietzsche’s Ideas in Camus’s The Stranger: Morality of Meursault and of Society

Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about the dynamics of society help explain the ethical

dilemmas presented in Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger. The novel incorporates many

elements that are fitting of Nietzsche’s ethical model such as the social hierarchy and the

inexistence of God. One of the multiple dilemmas presented is the perhaps brutal honesty of

Meursault regarding his mother or Marie. The main issue of the novel, however, arises from his

shooting of an Arab and four more shots after the fatal first shot. Moreover, this action connects

to the courtroom which judges from an unrelated incident. Many ethical dilemmas in The

Stranger, the displays of honesty and the Arab case, are explicable through Nietzsche’s ideas on

the interpretation of the body and the binary morality of the “master” and the “slave.”

The clear social structure presented in the novel is the interaction between the white,

French rulers against the native, Arab peoples. The “master” of this society is the French

colonizers. Nietzsche states that “the ‘good people’ themselves, that is, the noble, powerful,

higher-ranking, and higher-thinking people felt and set themselves and their actions up as good,

that is to say, of the first rank, in contrast to everything low, low-minded, common, and vulgar”

(Nietzsche, Geneology). Therefore, the French peoples’ will to power is the “good” of this

society. Clear distinctions between Meursault and his friends’ social status compared to the

Arabs supports Nietzsche’s ethical model in context of this setting.

 Lee 2

Moreover, Meursault does not believe in God. He mentions it many times throughout the

novel, and it is clear when he talks to the chaplain before his execution: “I said that I didn’t

believe in God” (Camus 116). Nietzsche’s famous quote “God is dead! God remains dead! And

we have killed him” shows a world in which one does not believe in a divine being and is free to

understand the world in a new way (Nietzsche, Gay Science). Since Meursault does not believe

in God, his morality can directly apply Nietzsche’s ideas on the interpretation of the body rather

than the reliance on a metaphysical entity. Throughout the novel, Meursault’s atheism provides a

stronger connection to Nietzsche’s ethical model.

The first glimpses of Meursault’s personality reveal his honesty. The sentence reads

“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (Camus 3). He hears of his mother’s

death, but presents himself as an apathetic, heartless individual when he answers members of the

home. He does care for his mother, though, as seen later in the novel: “And from the peculiar

little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying. For some reason I thought of

Maman” (Camus 39). This honesty seems to be hurtful to people around him, but it is morally a

justified choice. It represents Meursault’s “will to power” by not showing pity or weakness.

Moreover, after his mother’s death, he moves on with his life; he smokes, eats as usual at

Celeste’s, has a romantic encounter with Marie, and develops a quick friendship with Raymond.

His actions represent Nietzsche’s words:

The unconscious disguise of physiological needs under the cloaks of the objective, ideal,

purely spiritual goes to frightening lengths—and often I have asked myself whether,

taking a large view, philosophy has not been merely an interpretation of the body and a

misunderstanding of the body. (Nietzsche, Gay Science)

 Lee 3

Meursault follows Nietzsche’s ideas to try to understand one’s body since he no longer focuses

on the sadness of the death, but rather his body’s natural tendencies.

A similar dynamic is seen in Meursault’s honesty with Marie, his romantic interest. His

primary purpose in this love affair is for bodily interest, as seen in his description of their first

meeting: “I hoisted myself up next to her. It was nice, and, sort of joking around, I let my head

fall back and rest on her stomach. She didn’t say anything so I left it there” (Camus 20). Once

again, this action does not seem to be a bad or “weak” morality according to Nietzsche’s model,

since Meursault is following his body’s urges. He even tells Marie honestly that he is not in love

with her: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I

didn’t think so. She looked sad” (Camus 35). He shows his “master” morality by not showing his

feelings of empathy and telling of the truth:

That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it

didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to

know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean

anything but that I probably didn’t love her. (Camus 41)

Meursault’s honesty shows Nietzsche’s concept of bodily experience and portrayal of one’s

powerful authority over others.

The climax of The Stranger is Meursault’s shooting of the Arab. The situation is not

clear, but one aspect of the case is evident: Meursault did not plan or seek to kill the Arab. He

takes the gun from Raymond because he thinks that he would do something rash. He tells

Raymond: “No…take him on man to man and give me your gun” (Camus 56). He also does not

actively seek to murder, as he mentions later to his attorney: “he would like to know whether I

had gone back to the spring by myself intending to kill the Arab. ‘No,’ I said” (Camus 88). In
 Lee 4

this case, Meursault is simply following his “will to power” by leaving Arabs, those of lower

social standing, alone. He asserts his authority by being indifferent about these Arabs.

He also pulls the trigger accidentally, without knowing exactly why he does: “My whole

being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave” (Camus 59) At that

moment, Nietzsche’s ideas on understanding oneself is evident; one cannot understand oneself

except to feel what the body experiences. Letting the body act as it feels would be the best choice

for one’s own ethics, and Meursault has done so. His reasoning behind the gunshot also comes

from the hot, sweaty day creating an image of weakness in himself. He saw that “the Arab drew

his knife and held it up to me in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long

flashing blade cutting at my forehead” (Camus 59). Both his body’s reaction and his “master”

morality respond to the danger and conditions with the Arab, which allow Meursault’s ethics to

defend him.

Another aspect of the event of the shooting is the fact that he shoots four more times at

the dead body. He describes this in detail: “I fired four more times at the motionless body where

the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door

of unhappiness” (Camus 59). It may seem odd that he shoots at a human whom he has shot,

perhaps accidentally, at a human who is most certainly dead, by his description. Once again,

however, he does not or cannot give details on his mind at that time. It is simply another moment

where his body responds to his environment; his physical need for safety makes sure that he rids

of danger thoroughly and asserts his power over others.

One of the major conflicts in Camus’s novel is between Meursault and society, which is

represented by the courtroom and the law system. There is a continuation of Meursault’s

honesty. Even with no divine being in existence, unlike many French people, Meursault has his
 Lee 5

own ethical code he follows in the courtroom. His ethical code is created from his “noble” status

with power, as he is a part of the racially upper class in French Algiers. His “good” of “master”

morality forces him to be honest in many situations. In front of his prosecutor, he recalls: “He

asked me if he could say that that day I had held back my natural feelings. I said, ‘No, because

it’s not true’” (Camus 65). This conversation, however, leads to the bigger issue of this section:

the judgement of the court.

At the end of the novel, Meursault is sentenced to execution. The statement, though, was

that the judges “accuse this man of burying his mother with crime in his heart” (Camus 96).

There are constant questions regarding his mother’s death rather than the actual shooting of the

Arab, which annoys Meursault as well, since the prosecutor “exclaimed…with such glee and

with such a triumphant look in my direction that for the first time in years I had this stupid urge

to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me” (Camus 89). Its was not the

crime itself that convicted Meursault, but the sympathy to those who mourn his mother’s death.

Nietzsche questions: “What is more harmful than any vice? -- Active sympathy for the ill-

constituted and weak” (Anti-Christ). Therefore, the logic behind the courtroom does not follow

Nietzsche’s ethical model, since the excuse using his mother is a sign of weak, “slave” morality.

Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger has many ethical dilemmas resulting from the setting

he utilizes. Meursault’s identity as a nonreligious, white, French male connects with Nietzsche’s

ideas of the interpretation of the body and the “master” morality. The ethical dilemmas in his

extreme honesty, the first gunshot at the Arab, the four following gunshots, and the procession of

the courtroom all favor Meursault’s code of ethics. The ethical dilemmas presented in The

Stranger supports the tragic hero, Meursault, if reasoned from Nietzsche’s ideas on morality and

personal ethics.
 Lee 6

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Trans. Matthew Ward. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Anti-Christ(ian). Trans. R.J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin, 1990.

Print.

---.The Gay Science. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. Vintage, 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 17 May 2017.

<http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_the_gay_science/the_gay_science.htm>

---.On the Genealogy of Morals. Trans. Ian Johnston. Malaspina, n.d. Web. 18 May 2017.