In modern society, a person is sentenced to death because they pose a significant risk to society. In the book, The Stranger by: Albert Camus which is a Philosophical fiction, the character Meursault, in my opinion, is a risk to society. Meursault is emotionally indifferent from others, he has lack of moral standards and since he is an atheist.
First, we must look at why Raskolnikov committed the murders. Raskolnikov had a theory about man. He thought that they fell into one of two categories, and ordinary man or an extraordinary man. The ordinary man is subdued to a life of passive participation. On the other hand the extraordinary men have “an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep certain obstacles and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea”(260). Raskolnikov thoughts are that an extraordinary man may overstep the law if he thinks it is bettering a situation, in other words they, “seek destruction of the present for the sake of the better”(261). This is what Raskolnikov thought he was doing when he killed the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna. “The feeling of intense repulsion, which had begun to oppress and torture his heart while he was on his way to the old woman, had by now reached such a pitch and had taken such a definite form that he did not know what to do with himself to escape from his wretchedness”(4). This is why
Between all the other characters in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are the most similar in that Svidrigailov is depicted as Raskolnikov’s baser self and a depraved character. While Raskolnikov is seen to be a more repentant character who is afflicted with guilt after murdering the pawnbroker for his own selfish desires despite telling himself it is for the greater good, Svidrigailov is rumored to have committed several murders and feels nothing for his victims, one of them being his own wife. Throughout the story, Rask is shown as wanting to be like Svidrigailov just as Svidrigailov longs to be like Rask because each one has qualities that the other wants in their life.
Dostoyevsky gives the reader no such comfort. The reader wants to see Raskolnikov have some good excuse for killing the old woman, some sense of moral justification of the act so we can turn his accusers into "bad guys" and himself and his friends the "good guys". The reader gets nothing of the sort, Crime and Punishment is no fairy tale. The suspense in Crime and Punishment is caused by Dostoyevsky's superb characters, and the longing for a moral sense of right and wrong.
Throughout the story we are shown that he is not above the emotions and guilt that are the basic human reactions to an action as extreme as murder. His downfall comes because of this very fact, as he mentally and physically deteriorates under the stress of his culpability. His arrogance is proven to be the unfounded and foolhardy ideas of one who is truly a deeply insecure and unstable person (though Raskolnikov never truly realizes this).
First, let me introduce you to the main character himself otherwise known as the murderer in this story. Raskolnikov is the main protagonist of the novel, making the story in his point of view. He is very alienated from society due to his
This is how Raskolnikov is able to commit his crime: his intellectual side ignores his conscience and is able to commit the crime in a rational and orderly way. It is his dual character that serves as his punishment. One side of him is able to commit the murders, so the other must bear the punishment. He is tortured by the cruelty in mankind, and yet he himself is able to repeat it.
What is equally absurd is that Meursault remains passive and detached over the course of a year of interrogations, and despite the pessimistic nature of his situation, he is able to feel a sense of comfort and belonging within the system trying to condemn him. Ironically, those witness testimonies that sought to free him prove to be the most damaging, and the religious people who surround him and purport to love all men unconditionally persecute him for his lack of belief. Everyone is astonished that Meursault has no emotions about the murder --no sense of remorse or desire to repent. Most men in his position find
In the novel The Meursault Investigation, Kamel Daoud weaves a sister story for Albert Camus’s The Stranger, and has a dialogue of sorts with Camus. At times Daoud’s novel is very critical of Camus, standing in opposition to the attitudes and themes in The Stranger. The existence of The Meursault Investigation and the character of Musa is a criticism of the incomplete picture that Camus paints in his story, and the namelessness of “The Arab” that Meursault killed. Daoud gives a name to Meursault’s victim beyond that of “The Arab.” At other times, Daoud’s book parallels a lot of the ideas put forth by Camus. This can be seen as Harun slowly comes to resemble the man who killed his brother after committing a murder
Raskolnikov’s brusque affectation eventually yields to his predilection for salvation and redemption. He ultimately comes to the realization that he is not worthy of being “extraordinary” because of the crippling guilt that followed his murder of the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov reflects upon the implications of his crime on his psyche, “I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all,
Raskolnikov lives an ordinary life as an ordinary man. He is a good man and has a good heart, but he soon commits a crime that will forever change his life. Raskolnikov is a good man; I believe he is kind, generous, and selfless. Now, how are all of these positive traits found in a murderer? I think was caught in a psychotic moment, his mental state was not all there, and he had a dream, he made a plan, and he committed this terrible crime. A good example of Raskolnikov being a kind hearted person, and selfless is when he sees a young girl at the end of the street, he sees by her a rough looking man staring at her. He starts to get very worried what this man might do to this young girl. He goes down the street to get this young girl, and he pays for a taxi to get her home. This was so generous, and small yet so impactful. Raskolnikov cared about what might happen to this young girl, and did something about it. This showed how selfless Raskolnikov is, and what a kind heart he has. I think this shows Raskolnikov’s true character. From here, he makes some terrible decisions, and is engulfed by guilt, but I believe he is a generous, kindhearted person. In this book, Crime And Punishment, Raskolnikov goes from being an ordinary man with an ordinary life to a murderer, tortured by guilt, haunted by the memory of his crime, and him finding himself again in society after the murders.
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
“I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right…” (329). This quote shows the reason why Raskolnikov wanted to commit the murder. He wants to prove that he has the power to control his own life.
After the gruesome murder in Part 1 of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes indecisive in his guilt, ethics, and even daily actions, and through the uncertainty he loses all the control he had in his life. He goes around debating whether he should turn himself in, the people he should tell, and his future actions. In his indecisiveness he begins to feel helpless, and through his friend’s death and his total exhaustion, it seems like he loses only more control. His day culminates, as he arrives home, only to realize he forgot his family’s expected arrival, and becomes inadequately prepared to deal with his family’s caring concern. After having so much power through the murder
In order to understand Raskolnikov’s guilt, it is important to understand the religious influences at work in the time period and place he lived in. In St. Petersburg where Raskolnikov lives, there are strong Christian influences from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church condemns killing people with few exceptions. Although is not a devout believer, these influences are still at work in the book. It is clear that Raskolnikov is struggling to fight God away because, as he says that “once God’s will gets mixed up in it, nothing will be done” (389). He acknowledges that the guilt he has is God’s doing, and he struggles internally to get rid of it. The idea that he is not able to feel good about the murder that he knows improved society. He states that “what bothers [him] is this permission according to conscience” (253). Even though he wants to establish his own moral code, it is impossible for him to do so because of the influence of religion.