Principles of Morality in Relation to The Stranger by Albert Camus - Book Report/Review Example

Principles of Morality in Relation to ‘The Stranger’ by Albert Camus Morals are defined as principles concerning the differentiation between wrong and right or good behavior and bad behavior (Galens 20). It is the distinction between the right actions and wrong ones. Morals deal with peoples’ behaviors as well as their motives. These involve particular system of principles and values of conduct, particularly ones held by a specified society or individuals. The source of morality is of a great debate globally. Biblically, Gods character provides directives for morals that are revealed to humans through the Scriptures (Estrada 1). According to Estrada(1), recently there has been a disagreement, much better worth consideration, about the principles or foundation of morals in the society. It is not clear to humanity where morals and morality can be found (Uhlmann et al. 477). The society and humanity wonder whether morality can be derived from sentiments or reasons or whether we can achieve the knowledge of morals by a chain of induction and argument (Galens 20). Additionally, the society is uncertain whether morality is achieved by a finer internal sense or an immediate feeling, like all comprehensive judgment of falsehood and truth (Genovese 172). Moreover, it is not clear whether morality principles should be the same to each rational intelligent being; or whether, like the sensitivity of deformity and beauty it can be founded on the precise constitution and fabric of the human species (Hume and Jerome 79). All the uncertainties on the foundations of morality have one objective: distinguishing wrong from right and otherwise (Estrada 1). Genovese (183) outlines that, the principles of morality differ among different cultures, and some are relative that is, they are dependent situations and context. For instance, in different countries, people drive on different sides of the street. In addition, kissing is morally acceptable in a certain culture while bowing in another. However, there are some other morals that appear to be universally correct and true to all humans (Pinker 1). Examples of such morals are like committing murder that is morally wrong universally and torturing babies for personal pleasure is also morally wrong (Galens, 22). According to Genovese (190), Albert Camus impression of morality in his book The Stranger is entirely unconventional. That morality is original and founded on sense full reason and judgment (Camus and Matthew 121). This originality is visible through the protagonist who is a completely an embarrassment to his society. This discrepancy between what the society expects of Meursault and what he actually displays forms the basis of the author’s, Albert Camus, philosophy of morality. There is a great question mark on conventional morality that the author discovers to be irrational. Albert appears to be enquiring the fabric of morality in the society on grounds of motivation (Camus and Matthew 126). The great questions are whether some of the values of morality are upheld just for convenience or if they certainly out of conviction? (Uhlmann et al. 483) and “what place does an individual have in a society, or that is one more important between the convention and the individual?” (Hume and Jerome 88). In reference to Camus and Matthew (130), on the basis of morality, it is not that the Meursault cannot distinguish wrong from right, but his ideas and perceptions of wrong and right differ from what the society expects. Hence, while upholding a good knowledge of wrong and right, Camus takes a fundamental position against contemporary visions on these morality concepts. These different moral codes can be seen by the way Meursault declines to interrupt his morals. For instance, Meursault can discourage his friend from killing but he doesn’t (Estrada 1). While he will not tell a lie even to free himself, Meursault does not value honesty and neither hides his disbelief in a higher being (Camus and Matthew 133). He is enthused to appear in the mother’s burial, but he does not. In most instances, Meursault does not stop to humiliate the people around his environment of his actions. While the society has conditioned to respond to circumstances in a socially acceptable manner, Meursault always upholds his to standards of actions. Instead of acting in the idea of the demands of the society or the common good, he stands to his ‘good’ against the expectation of the society (Camus and Matthew, 142). Throughout the book, Meursault the protagonist doesn’t lie, even when people expect him to lie to save his life. Social cooperation is also another particularly significant principle of morality both anciently and in the contemporary society (Uhlmann et al. 486). Every individual in the society has an aim to maximize his or her satisfaction. Moreover, every person recognizes that his or her satisfaction is best maximized by cooperating with others in the society or by others cooperating with her or him. This stresses on the need for social acceptance. Usually, the unlimited means of social cooperation in the society is through division of labor and societal acceptance (Estrada 1). Division of labor immensely escalates the productivity of every person and therefore the productivity of all individuals. Meursault refuses to accept social cooperation. He stands to his principles (Hume and Jerome 124). While the society chose to believe in the existence, Meursault chose not to believe in God, and doesn’t hide his decision. His open moral code is instituted in Camus` concepts of the absurd and existentialism (Camus and Matthew 160). Meursault is honest but doesn’t believe in honesty as a moral conduct; he never lies around his beliefs in existence of a superior being because he doesnt see the argument for lying. People lie to gain something, such as social cooperation (Pinker 1). However, social cooperation is not a worry for Meursault, and he believes he will gain nothing by lying to appeal to other people and to the society. For Meursault wrong and right or bad and good are legal rapports (Camus and Matthew 161). He understands the needs and rules of the society and abides by them except when the rules go against his pleasure principles. This does not mean that Meursault has a moral code; he is immoral according to the society because he doesn’t obey the society’s moral codes (Genovese, 200). In reference to Uhlmann et al. (489), the antique philosophers, though they often assert that morality is nothing but tenet to reason, appear to contemplate morals as originating their existence from emotion and taste (Estrada 1). On the other hand, contemporary inquiries also talk much of the splendor of morality, and irregularity of immorality. However, the inquiries have commonly attempted to justify these peculiarities by abstract reasoning and conclusions from the most intellectual principles of comprehension of morality (Galens 27). In this way, active decision-making is a key prerequisite of morality (Maus 88). This can bring a situation where an individual might be right, but incorrect. Emotion and taste might dictate decisions and actions of individuals. Camus is broadcasting his morals and values through Meursault (Estrada 1). It is possible that Meursault is not or could not be human. According to Pinker, apparently, he does not make cognizant decisions. He rather submissively permits things to happen to, with, and through him. He appears to be emotionless and lacks a sense of taste; for instance when he has the opportunity of advising his friend not to kill, but he lets his friend go ahead and kill. Because he never solicits the question of morality, perhaps Meursault cannot be considered moral. Decisions alone are not moral, but only people are moral. His decisions judge him as immoral (Camus and Matthew 172). However, it must be recognized, that both sides of morality are vulnerable to erroneous arguments. It could be possible that moral distinctions are obvious by pure reason (Galens 32). Otherwise, there are many disputes that rule in common society life besides in philosophy, about morality. For example, the elongated chains of attestations often formed on both sides, and the examples mentioned (Maus 120). In addition, disputes arise in the analogies employed; authorities appealed to fallacies detected, inferences drawn, and the numerous conclusions attuned to their suitable principles (Genovese 200). Essentially, truth is disputable while taste is not. What exists naturally forms the standard of peoples’ judgment. Moreover, what individuals feel within themselves is the standard of emotions or sentiment. For instance, in geometry propositions may be proved; in physics systems may be refuted. However, the tenderness of passion, harmony of a verse or brilliancy of wit must give instant pleasure. No person reasons regarding anothers beauty but often concerning the injustice or justice of another’s actions. The choice of reason is influenced by an understanding of morality (Estrada 1). In conclusion, Uhlmann et al. (494) outlines that the result of all moral assumptions is to teach a man his duty in the society. However, morality alone does not define a person (Camus and Matthew 120). As shown in the book ‘The Stranger’, humans have to make a decision to act either wrongly, rightly, badly or good. Humans discover truths, but where the truths they discover are unresponsive, and cause no desire or hatred, it is impossible to produce any influence on behavior or conduct (Maus 75). What is honorable, fair, becoming, noble, or generous, possess the heart and stirs humans, upon the decision, to embrace and uphold it. Moreover, what is intelligible, evident, probable, or true, acquires only the cool approval of the human understanding. Albert Camus illustrates that when humans satisfy all the warm prepossessions and feelings in favor of morals, and all disgusts to vise: they totally become indifferent to their discrepancies (Camus and Matthew 129). Then, morality no longer becomes a practical, nor takes any propensity to regulate lives and actions of humans. Works Cited Camus, Albert, and Matthew Ward. The Stranger. New York, NY: Vintage International, 1989. Internet resources. Estrada, Brenda. The Stranger by Albert Camus — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists. Goodreads. Anglican Priests for life, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. . Galens, David. “Existentialism.” Literary Movements for Students: Presenting Analysis, Context, and Criticism on Literary Movements. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2002. 51+. Print. Genovese, Maria K. Meaningful Meaninglessness: Albert Camus Presentation of Absurdism as a Foundation for Goodness. Salvage Regina University 60.4 (2010): 170-201. Print. Hume, David, and Jerome B. Schneewind. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Indianapolis, India: Hackett, 1995. Print. Maus, Derek C. Readings on The Stranger. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 2001. Print. Sachdeva, Sonya, Purnima Singh, and Douglas Medin. "Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning." International Journal of Psychology 43.3 (2011): 161-176. Print. Pinker, Steven. The Moral Instinct - New York Times. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. . Uhlmann, Eric L., David A. Pizarro, David Tannenbaum, and Peter H. Ditto. "The motivated use of moral principles." Judgment and Decision Making 4.6 (2009): 476-491. Print. Read More