The Overcoat Rationalization

Although, Raskolnikov tries to hold on to his morality, he starts to develop a concept of Ubermensch in his mind. Raskolnikov justifies his future actions by many reasonings. Not only would the death of the pawnbroker bring him wealth but everyone would benefit from her death. In this quote, Raskolnikov overhears this conversation about wanting the pawnbrokers. This further convinced Raskolnikov that everyone including him would appreciate her death. Additionally, Raskolnikov explained the theory of Ubermensch. The concept of a individual being extraordinary by having the possibility to go above the law without guilt. He wanted to test this concept to see if he is an ubermensch. Raskolnikov character shows in the novel the wrong and insufition

Raskolnikov's speech to Porfiry, in which he defines what it is to be extraordinary and where he justifies the actions of extraordinary men, is a definition and idea that can be attributed to Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov gives the speech as though he were detached from it; he doesn't realize the implications of what he is saying, he doesn't realize that what he is describing is not him. This speech should have made Raskolnikov reflect; it should have made him question his situation, especially after the murder he commits and his self-identity crisis (extraordinary or ordinary). But Raskolnikov's speech has no such effect; he speaks as though reading a transcript or reciting a memorized poem, as if somebody is talking through him and as if the words had no affect on his conscience. He looks at the ground while speaking, as if frightened of the implications of the theory for his own life, but he never voices this fear, he simply moves on. Why doesn't Raskolnikov ever stop to reflect on his own essay, when it holds the key to his self-identity crisis? Why does he never question the murder he committed, why doesn't he try and discern whether his crime is extraordinary or ordinary? He has not come to terms with his identity or the nature of the crime, yet he never tries to reconcile these identities with "his own" essay. Raskolnikov also ignores the fact that he is acting, out

Raskolnikov is alway on high alert as he is afraid he will get caught, and he even gets to the point of lying to himself. Therefore, by doing this Raskolnikov thinks it is the truth and will do anything that he wants within his reason. In the book Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Raskolnikov's desire to murder someone caused him to use utilitarianism. This utilitarianism is used when Raskolnikov thinks some things are right such as; killing, planning out murder, hiding the truth, and manipulating. First, Raskolnikov shows signs of using utilitarianism when he plans and kills Alyona Ivanovna.

Through Raskolnikov’s exemplification of the impracticality of this principle\, Dostoevsky makes his greatest point in Crime and Punishment. His commentary on the subject seeks to discredit the theory in the circumstance of an individual “superman” by displaying Raskolnikov as a character who is difficult for readers to identify with because of his inanity. Even Raskolnikov’s name is a symbol of nihilistic ideas, the word “raskol” meaning schism in Russian, illustrating the shift from an older school of thought (social utopianism) to a darker philosophy: nihilism and utilitarianism. Raskolnikov seems to fluctuate back and forth between the two philosophies, acting on one and then mentally chastising himself for it, immediately and almost erratically changing his mind. This symbolizes the more human side of him struggling

Life is not easy, which Fyodor Dostoevsky makes very clear in his novel Crime and Punishment. In life, you encounter people that you find admirable. People who persevere, making tough decisions even though they may not be easy, or benefit themselves in any way. Those are the Razumikhins, and Sonyas of our world. Honorable (sometimes to a fault), willing to sacrifice themselves to help those they love. They embody what virtue theory followers believe. Unfortunately, you will also encounter people who are not wonderful. There are awful, disgusting people that take advantage and exert their power over others. Those are the Luzhins and the Svidrigailovs of the world. People like them will not hesitate to use their wealth or power to bend those they wish to take advantage of, forcing others to submit to their will. Ruining people, or making others feel terrible about themselves, or taking what they think they are entitled to because they believe it is their right. These are the type of people that display features of ethical egoism. Raskolnikov finds himself constantly drifting between these two extremes. He may do something good, then when it causes more trouble than he intended, he berates himself instead. Raskolnikov is a very conflicted character, and after murdering Alyona, and her sister Lizaveta with his axe he became even more conflicted. In a way, Raskolnikov kind of represents the everyday person (if you forget about murdering two people with an axe). The everyday

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.

As Raskolnikov’s internal struggle becomes evident, Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov’s disoriented state to illustrate nihilism’s ineffectiveness as a catalyst for social change. Raskolnikov’s radical philosophy is initially used as justification of his murder, a gambit to escape St. Petersburg’s poverty crisis. By labeling the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna as a “louse” and being largely apathetic towards any emotional or social repercussions, it is suggested that her death is for the greater good of not only Raskolnikov, but the whole of society; this lack of emotional substance in his logic brands him as a cold-blooded utilitarianist. However, it is a different story after the murder, where even Raskolnikov begins to doubt the legitimacy of his own argument. He realizes that his adrenaline rush prevents him from stealing much of the pawnbroker’s money, and with what he does manage to salvage, it is hidden away, nullifying any constructive benefit he had hoped to provide. Additionally, the murder of the pawnbroker’s innocent sister Lizaveta, whom prior to the even Raskolnikov feels

Therefore Amoia notes that, "as the implications of the deed unfold in his conscience, Raskolnikov attempts to jusitfy his actions as a 'rational' crime" (53). Though he understands that he will be able to escape the physical punishement for the crime, he has yet to comprehend the burden that comes with such an unethical action. Even when Porfiry suggests that the criminal who murdered the pawnbroker may run away but, "psychologically he won't escape" (287), Raskolnikov becomes infuriated and accuses Porfiry of trying to scare him. However, Raskolnikov fails to understand the meaning behind Porfiry's words perhaps because he still chooses not to rely on his conscience and confess to the crime.While the superiority complex sets him apart from the society in the beginning, his piercing conscience distances him from people later on in the novel. He refuses to speak to Razumuikhin or to his family. It only before he goes to jail, that he decides to see his mother. Even when he does so, he is relieved that Dunya is not in the room. He later admits to Dunya that he doesn't, "even remember why [I] even went" to meet his mother. His conscience does not allow him to face his loved ones and eventually, he tries to isolate himself from society. While Raskolnikov tries to alienate himself from his own conscience, he is alienating himself from humanity in general.

From declaring he wanted to become a Napoleon to wishing for financial independence to murdering for his own sake, he rattles off various motives, showing his obsessive rationalization (394-397). By presenting his conflicting intentions, Dostoevsky exhibits the chaos within Raskolnikov’s mind.

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

Morality is defined as a recognition or belief that explains why some behaviors are bad or good. In simple words, morality refers to values relating to the distinction between wrong and right or good and bad. Few morals are easily accepted and are only questioned by some fringes of society who might disagree with such morals. These individuals on the fringes can be bad or good. The ones who reject socially accepted moral does not necessarily mean that they are good persons. Thus, one can say that each individual has morals that are different from each other (Joseph).

This proposes that an individual is allowed to impose his own values on society. However, Raskolnikov's actions imply that he still operates out of a slave mentality. He eats his soup "in a mechanical sort of way" (1, 6, p.86), and in the murder of the landlady he "almost mechanically struck her" (1, 6, p.96). The crime seals Raskolnikov's isolation, which is necessary for an extraordinary man to set himself apart from the rest and defeat his slave impulses; he tells his mother and sister, "I want to be alone. Better forget me altogether" (4, 3, p.328). However, even the self-sufficient Svidrigaylov demonstrates a human requirement for the company of others, indicating his own lavishness: "And I shall be your slave‹for the rest of my life" (6, 5, p.506). Further examples refute Raskolnikov's theory. He wonders "if man isn't really a beast‹man in generalŠthe whole human raceŠthen all the rest is just prejudice, just imagined fears" (1, 2, p.44). Raskolnikov's, or any single man's, inability to rise out of the morass of bourgeois complacency is pointed out by a bar patron, who asks "Would you kill the old woman yourself?ŠIf you are not ready to do it yourself, it's not a question of justice at all" (1, 6, p.86). The Raskolnikov does eventually kill her by himself, the important idea presented here is that no single person has the strength or will to combat bourgeois morality by himself; rather, there

If I could meet Dostoevsky I would ask him what his inspiration for Crime and Punishment was. Sometimes I wonder if the novel was written to give us insight to how Dostoevsky felt about the world. Maybe he is using the character Raskolnikov to portray a part of him who feels alienated from the world, and is torn apart

Dostoevsky’s believes in existentialism, and the idea that individual freedom is essential to the development of the mind (Copleston 165). He speaks through his characters by presenting them as “continually defeated as a result of their choices” ( “Existentialism”). Though Raskolnikov is allowed to make his own decisions he ended up making the wrong ones. He is forced to face his consequences of the murders he committed. Dostoevsky’s blend of philosophy with the novel allows