One of Meursault's most predominant character traits is his apathy. He doesn't really care about anything or anybody. He is indiffent to Marie when she expresses her desire to marry and has no qualms about participating in the heinous plot to get revenge on Raymond's girlfrend. He doesn't even seem to care about the death of his own mother. It has been said the the opposite of good is not evil, but apathy. Do you agree with this statement? Is not caring really worse than evil? Use examples from real life as well as the novel to support your point of view.
I do agree with this statement because apathy represents an uncertainty rather than evil which represents pretty much anythings that is the opposite of good. I think that if people begin to not care at all then evil acts will come about as a part of these actions so it has a double effect. In life people often are put into circumstances so that they have to steal and do evil to survive. They are often able to stay alive by these methods. However, if they were to give up this evil, it would lead to their demise. So far the book expresses to me that Meursault expresses feelings of not caring toward his companion and all through out the story. He says he doesn't care about getting married or helping Raymond which will later influence his character's decisions on more important matters. -Brandon Day
ReplyDeleteI agree with that statement. Atleast evil has feelings for something. There is a reason evil does what it does. Also, there is always hope that evil can become good one day. Like in Spiderman 2, when Doc Oc's main plan was to kill Spiderman, he ends up saving him and Mary Jane at the end. Apathy is dangerous because they don't think, they don't choose sides. The are empty. They can nuke a country and then go save a little girl from a burning building. You know what they say... Long hair don't care!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this statement. People with apathetic attitudes have no goals or morals and do not commit to anything. Pure evil at least commits to something, including their actions and emotions. Evil has a reason for doing their crimes, for example, getting revenge on their family that was murdered. But apathy has no reason for doing anything, and does it just because they want to.
ReplyDeleteI would rather someone be evil than apathetic. I think being apathetic is worse because there is so reasoning behind what you have done and you feel no emotion towards anything. An evil person at least has some sort of reasoning and emotion behind why they do evil things. Whether they have a good reason or not is opinionated. I think it would be kind of cool to be apathetic too because I would never have cared or worried about anything. It's scary though having apathy seems like it would be some sort of disorder or illness though.
Delete~haley rasnick
(yes, i am blogging on a Friday night #livingthegroundedlife2k12)
I completely agree with this statement. Not caring is most definitely worse than evil. Most people committing an evil act normally have a line that even they will not cross and they even have a purpose for what they are doing but people who just do not care like Meursault will do whatever without really having a purpose. He is willing to help Raymond get revenge, get married, and even kill someone simply because he can and he does not necessarily care about the consequences. Evil normally shows remorse but apathy does not care about the evil deed done and shows no remorse. Most people who commit murder do out of necessity and spur of the moment and afterwards are incredibly remorseful for it and many even commit suicide over it. Although a couple years back there was a teenager who killed someone else over a girl and showed absolutely no remorse over it which is much like Meursault. This makes him more of a menace to society because he did not care that he had murdered another human being and if given the opportunity would probably do it again. Apathy is more dangerous than evil because people who do not care about something wrong that they did, show no remorse therefore they may do it again and become more of a menace to society
ReplyDelete-Matthew Greene
I agree, apathy is worser than evil. The reason having apathy is like not having a conscience to lead you to make better decisions. At least when you're evil you have a guily conscience of some sort, and you can be punished. When you don't care, you don't care, you don't care what you do, you don't care about the consequences. Like Matt said about murderers they show some type of remorse, maybe it may not be remorse for the murder but for their freedom, either way they show it. People with apathy have no line to cross, the don't care.
ReplyDelete-Sylvia Williams
"We may have found a cure for most evils; but we have found no remedy for the worst of them all, the apathy of human beings."
ReplyDeleteHelen Keller
Apathy I agree is a concern far greater than evil.We can understand why people may be evil, but to not care is unknown. It's dangerous because their is no reason behind apathetic people, but just doing what they do without caring about the consequences. There is no plan to be carried out. Apathy has no remorse and is like a deadly disease that has no turning back unless there is a way of stopping an apathetic person's way of thinking- simply not caring. Evil can be overcome but can apathy?
I do believe that apathy is much worse than evil. Evil actions are usually sparked by something that calls for retaliation. The reason for the retaliation may not ba a good one but all the same there is a reason. An apathetic person on the other hand has no reason whatsoever behind negative or sometimes positive actions. Apathetic people are desensitized to violence and will do things that are wrong without considering the effects of their action. Raymond was beating his girlfriend up because he believed that she betrayed him, while Meursault took a man's life for no reason at all. When Marie expressed her feelings for Meursault, he said "sure" to marrying her when she asked but in the same breath he told her that he didn't love her. Evil is knowing what you want to do, having a reason for doin it, and doing it even though lives can be ended or destroyed. Apathy is doing something for no reason that can harm others and having no display of emotion.
ReplyDelete--Kayla Barrett
DeleteI wholehearted agree with this statement. Evil is wanting to cause harm, apathy is having little to no emotion. Evil will apathy, and Apathy allows evil. Evil hates anything that is innocent and defenseless, Apathy is just not caring as long and its not an inconvenienced. For example, when a person say in the war kills someone or a group of people, they know that is what they have to do, simply because that is their job, and they are attempting to keep millions of other people in other places of the world safe. It would make them evil if they were doing it, and getting a thrill ride out of it. It would make them Apathetic if they were just doing it because they could or because someone told them too, not including that they "had" to. Maybe that was a bad example, but it would also make them Evil, and to a certain extent Apathetic, if they had no remorse. Think about if, the people who were in the biggest of wars came back home in a different state of mind, and they keep going back to that place or time frame, where they didn't feel comfortable. They dwell on the past and relive all what they saw and experienced. I am pretty sure they don't regret the fact that they had to kill those people to help another nation, but They probably do feel bad to the fact that they had to kill someone of their kind, another fellow man. Being evil normally has a reason, and there is a list of them, but being apathetic is just going through life, and living day by day, and not really caring about anything. Maybe not even caring if you life or die. At least an Evil person would at least care to see another day so they could cause more damage to the world. Not caring is extremely worse then pure evil. At least they have a reason (I just said that). Raymond beating his girlfriend was evil, considering the fact that he had no actual proof that she did cheat on him, but because he had an argument, that could be fought on both sides (I guess), he had a reason. Meursault on the other hand did not care about the day his mother day, which you know, other would have freaked out, cause they day would always be filled with remorse, but not for him!
ReplyDeleteNo one ever says, “Good vs. Apathy”. It’s always been Good vs. Evil, and it always will be. Everyone is guilty of being apathetic some time or another, and if everyone is to blame than no one will be. Apathy allows for evil to take over, but is apathy really the opposite of good?
ReplyDeleteFollow up question, if you could completely rid the world of one or the other, apathy or evil, which one would you eliminate? That answer is obvious; you would get rid of evil, because without evil apathy doesn't hurt anyone.
- Alex Colling
i agree with haley 100%. an apathetic person is just pretty much talking up space. they dont care about anything or have any emotion, its weird. i agree also with haley when she says they are like ill or something. atleast an evil person is showing they have emotion and arent a soulless person. i think not caring is worse than evil 100%.
ReplyDelete(woah, i remembered to blog!)
Apathy is more dangerous than evil. The saying, "Idle hands are the Devil's playthings." comes to mind when considering apathy. Indifferent people only require a catalyst to make them do terrible things. They have no remorse or sense of judgement. Evil people and good people have things in common, because they tend to be striving for a goal, and opposing one another. They balance each other out, keeping the world on it's metaphorical axis. Apathetic people are like free weights, falling on a two sided scale with no rhyme or reason. Eventually, the apathetic people will tip the scale a certain way.
ReplyDelete- Barack Jordan
I do agree with the statement that apathy is far worse than evil. Apathy is a far more dangerous feeling to have towards things because you have no care for anything at all. At least if your evil you may show some characteristics of having a conscience and feel guilty about an action, but if your apathetic towards someone then it wouldn't make a difference what would happen to anyone or anything because they don't care. - Alicia Wilson
ReplyDeleteI believe that apathy is not worse than evil. People who have evil intentions will knowingly harm another for their own satisfaction. Whereas, an apathetic person doesn't care about a thing, and has no intentions, so would not harm another unless put into a situation to do so. Without the situations created by evil, apathetic people would be in no situation to cause harm. - Thomas C
ReplyDeleteApathy is not necessarily the opposite of good. Apathy just allows for evil to exist and continue. While apathy can be dangerous, it wouldn't be a problem if there were no evil. At least when a person doesn't care, they don't have a malicious intent. If you see someone killing someone, who's worse, the murderer or the apathetic bystander? While the apathetic person could help or try to stop the murderer, he is not the one doing harm.
ReplyDelete-Krystal Midcap
I agree with it. Atleast evil has a goal. Meursault doesn't have a goal and will do what ever pleases him. That can be good or it can be bad. There is no reasoning with him which makes it worse than evil. With most evil people, you can negotiate with them to give them what they want but but with apathy you can't do that because they don't care and they just want to do what they want to do.
ReplyDeleteApathy is a much greater threat than evil. You can have evil without apathy but you can't have apathy without evil. An apathetic person is mysterious and does not have any goals. I agree with Maryam when she says that there is no reasoning with apathy. Meursalt just goes on with no goals and does not care for life at all. Everything is meaningless
ReplyDelete-Ashley Collins