Are there special human beings who are entitled to more rights and privileges than ordinary humans? Rodia’s theory in Dostoyevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, addresses this question. His desire to perform benevolent deeds for society converts him into a strong believer in his theory, influencing him to commit murder. Through Rodia’s experiment, the novel proves the theory false. Dostoevsky uses his characterization of Raskolnikov to express criticism of the popular theory, Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism was a widespread theory in Russia during Dostoyevsky’s era, a belief that achieving a greater good for the society, in any method, was a moral right. For example, one believes that an evil deed is invalidated by the morally justified outcome
…show more content…
The use of the third person omniscient point of view reveals the author’s direct thoughts on the mare dream. It “often [has] a singular actuality, vividness and extraordinary semblance of reality. At times monstrous images are created, but the setting and the whole picture are so truth like and filled with details so delicate, so unexpected, but so artistically consistent, that the dreamer… could never have invented them in the waking state” (44). According to the author, dreams are not merely dreamt for entertainment; they withhold a symbolic meaning that represent a truth of the dreamer. In Rodia’s nightmare, his discordant thoughts are disclosed to the readers through the use of symbolism of the little boy and Mikolka. They represent each of Rodia’s split personality; Rodia is both Mikolka, who brutally beats the mare to death, and the little boy, who weeps for the suffering mare. Mikolka justifies his action for killing the horse by stating that she is unable to successfully fulfill her role to contribute to society. He describes her uselessness by saying, “This brute, mates, is just breaking my heart, I feel as if I could kill her. She’s just eating her head off” (46). Mikolka has no consideration for the value of the mare’s life and feels apathetic towards its suffering. This parallels Rodia’s belief that killing the pawnbroker is not a crime but one that merely removes the unwanted …show more content…
Similar to Rodia’s dual personality, there are many contradictions within his theory. Rodia claims that extraordinary humans commit crimes that are beneficial to society and thus, they have “a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and the law is not for them” (205). These men have a right to take lead in society because they are given extraordinary tasks; at the same time, they are above the ordinary men and can overlook their moral laws because the privileged men’s crimes are justified for their moral purposes. At the time of his murder, Rodia’s theory is underdeveloped and his crime was an experimentation. When Rodia confesses to Sonia, he says, “I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake, for myself alone! I didn’t want to lie about it even to myself” (329). In truth, Rodia wanted to test out his theory, despite his justifications, and find out if he was an extraordinary human and were given these rights. He desperately wanted to feed his self-esteem by placing himself superior to others. However, his psychological battle, the constant guilt, uneasiness, and instability, confirmed that he is was not granted these immortal rights. Ultimately, Rodia accepts the truth he had been rejecting and turns himself in order to free himself from the guilt that captured him. In the end, Rodia had no revolutionary cause to murder the
Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is a psychologically charged novel in which the primary element that plagues the protagonist, Rodion Raskolnikov, is not a person but rather an idea; his own idea. Raskolnikov has an unhealthy obsession with rendering himself into what he perceives as the ideal, supreme human being, an übermensch. Raskolnikov forms for himself a theory in which he will live purely according to his own will and transcend the social norms and moralities that dominate society. Raskolnikov suggests that acts commonly regarded as immoral are to be reserved for a certain rank of “extraordinary” men. Raskolnikov’s faith
Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel Crime and Punishment by Feodor Dostoevsky, actually possesses two completely contradicting personalities. One part of him is intellectual: cold, unfeeling, inhumane, and exhibiting tremendous self-will. It is this side of him that enables him to commit the most terrible crime imaginable - taking another human life. The other part of his personality is warm and compassionate. This side of him does charitable acts and fights against the evil in his society.
Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov comes from a poor family and went to Petersburg in order to study. After a while Raskolnikov becomes destitute, living miserably. Raskolnikov is prideful, stubborn, and charismatic,which makes him an interesting character. Raskolnikov’s deep pride is one reason for him killing Alyona the old pawnbroker. Yet, Raskolnikov believed that killing Alyona would help humanity and take away evil from society. Such sentiments are spoken by a man he overhears, “"Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?" With strong intentions on helping others, he is
Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.
The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.
Being the protagonist in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is subject to most ridicule and analysis for his moral ambiguity and outlandish views. After reading about his dreadful murder of Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, many come to the conclusion that Raskolnikov is purely evil. His lack of guilt and belief of justification for his crime surely points readers in this direction. Raskolnikov remains convinced that he is superior and that it was his duty to kill such a worthless person. Although some may view this as evilness, others may perceive it as downright ignorant. His atypical way of thinking doesn’t necessarily make him evil, but that is how some comprehend it. At certain points in the story, we see Raskolnikov not as a deranged man, but instead as a compassionate human being. After the murder, we see him carrying out various charitable acts, perhaps as an attempt to atone for his unforgivable crime. For example, we see some good in him when he gives Sonya’s family twenty rubbles after Marmeladov passes on. We also see this when he attempts to rescue a drunk girl from a man by giving her money for a taxi. As much as Raskolnikov expresses that he was justified in his actions, through his mental and physical illnesses it is apparent that he feels some guilt about it. This guilt makes him seem at least a little bit more human. For these reasons, when all is said and done, it is difficult to determine
In the modern world, abhorrent crimes result in major effects such as deaths and injuries. Examples include terrorism where there are multiple casualties. The law, while developing punishment for the offenders, presents the verdict to the individual in different ways such as jail sentence. However, in crimes involving serious impacts, capital punishment is considered a major verdict which is described as the practice of killing an offender as a result of their crimes. This punishment, also referred as death penalty, is inflicted upon following judicial procedure. The foundation for passing this verdict can be explained through the classical criminology which in the modern version is referred as rational choice theory (RCT). Notably, the foundation for inflicting death penalty judgment is according to the assumptions and arguments of RCT.
Shortly before Raskolnikov kills Alyona, he wanders into a bar and overhears two men talking. The two men agree back and forth and one says, “Wouldn’t thousands of good deeds make up for one tiny little crime? For one life, thousands of lives saved from decay and corruption.” (65) Although Raskolnikov already witnesses Alyona’s sister, Lizaveta, being bossed around cruelly as a servant for Alyona, overhearing these two men talk about how cruel Alyona is, allows Raskolnikov to come to contentment with his idea of murdering her. The influence this conversation had on Raskolnikov is shown in a quote, shortly after he hears the men speak. “This negligible tavern conversation had an extreme influence on him in the further development of the affair; as though there were indeed some predestination, some indication in it…” (66) Raskolnikov uses this conversation as an excuse to wrap his mind around his desire to kill Alyona. He believes that because others want her dead, that fate is pushing him in the direction of murdering her. This excuse is demonstrated falsely when he feels remorseful after the murder. Aylona’s life was indeed not meaningfulness, and Raskolnikov realizes that his motive was not because she was an awful
Crime and Punishment by Fydor Dostoyevsky has been hailed as the greatest literary work in the Western hemisphere. Crime and Punishment was written in pre-Communist Russia under the Tsar. Dostoyevsky's writing shows insight into the human mind that is at once frightening and frighteningly real. His main character, around who all other characters are introduced, is Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov.
Classical criminological theory was introduced in 1764. The tenants of this theory became the backbone for the development of all criminological theories to come. After over 200 years have passed since its conception, is classical criminological theory still relevant to today’s society in explaining the causes of crime? This essay will address this question by discussing the major components of classical criminological theory while highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The essay will also examine a more modern criminological theory, Merton’s anomie/strain theory, and decipher major differences between the two theories. This essay will also explain the aspects of classical criminological theory that are applicable or outdated in their
In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky discusses justice, questioning who or what determines this ideal. Primarily, he focuses on a man named Raskolnikov, who murders two women and then wrestles with his motives. As Raskolnikov’s hopeless outlook drives him to madness, his friend Sonia reveals an alternative view of justice, which allows for redemption. Through analyzing his character’s viewpoints, Dostoevsky never explicitly defines justice; instead, he exposes his audience to different interpretations to form their own conclusions. However, by depicting Raskolnikov spiraling into madness, Dostoevsky guides his reader to reject justice as determined by man in favor of it established by a higher power.
The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.
There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how individuals are being punished or if the punishment is too harsh, not severe enough or if the individual even needs punishment because what they may need is psychiatric help.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the