After the testifying for Raymond, Meursault and Marie are invited to Masson’s beach house, “a friend of Raymond” where they have lunch and go for a stroll on the beach. This is where the trio, “Raymond, Meursault and Masson” engage in an altercation with a pair of Arabs related to Raymond’s ex-mistress. Raymond is wounded and both parties flee. After Raymond is patched up, he proceeds to head back to the beach. Meursault follows. While walking they run into the Arabs again and Raymond reaches in his pocket and pulls out a gun, and ask Meursault should he shoot him. This is the first time Meursault express any kind of moral code and says, “He hasn’t said anything yet, it would be pretty lousy to shoot him like that. Meursautt is implying someone should have ta deserve to get shot. This may be a representation of Kant’s freedom. “by obeying his own law, the modern individual becomes “free as regards all laws of nature and he obeys only those laws he gives to himself”. What is the criteria that justifies shooting someone? For them to speak; morally it makes no sense, but it is a clear line Meursault has drawn, So they devise a plan to instigate the Arab, so that then they may shoot him, during the discussion the Arabs escape and Meursault and Raymond leave. Later Meursault finds himself back on the beach this time by himself. Once again he stumbles upon one of the Arabs occupying a rock that Meursault wishes to occupy. Gun in hand, Meursault moves forward, “motivated once again by how he feels” and is Perceived as a threat to the Arab.  The Arab draws a knife and Meursault shoots him five times. The first shot incapacitates him, but he shoots him four more times for no logical reason. This is very irrational behavior and something that may only be committed by a complete misanthrope with serious detachment from human society. It also outlines his absurdist qualities. Why shoot him four more times?  Meursault can give no explanation either way, it amounts to the same thing to him - whether he doesn't shoot or whether he shoots, which highlights his overall indifference and detachment to the gravity of the situation. After the murder Meursault is thrown into jail.

During Meursault’s jail time he is put on trial for the murder of the Arab. He finds this ludicrous and sums the whole situation to being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but is he on trial for murder? Meursault being on trial for murder, which prove that some moral conduct is necessary.  Sensation without perception is dangerous, we must make sense of what we feel or we may condemn our self. Sometimes it is necessary to play societies games, especially if your goal is to live longer. This should be your overall first natural instinct, “self-preservation”. For this same reason Meursault’s trial is not going well, he is very forth coming with his testimonies and sounds like a complete detached psycho as he gives his description of events and blames the murder on the sun. He is very truthful, but is truth the best policy? 

Meursault is indeed free compared to most of us, but that is not to say he has found something no one else has. I think we all understand if we wanted to we could ail live life freely without morals or ethics, but I think we also understand the consequences from such actions. Meursault actions and thought process can only be described logically as the actions and thoughts of an absurdist. Although, he is clearly condemned by the odd way he looks at the world. One could argue the stranger. a cautious tail of why morals and ethics might sometimes be necessary no matter how ludicrous they may appear at large; Even if they only serve the purpose of keeping you alive.
