Morality in Dostoyevsky

Is any person inherently better than another? Does any person have the right to take another's life? Is there such thing as an appropriate justification for murder? In Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, the character Raskolnikov struggles with these questions and ultimately decides that murder can be justified and that some men are better than others. His reasoning for this is that murder is okay if it helps more people than it hurts.

Raskolnikov is wrong! The act of murder, no matter what the purpose, undermines the principles of society. It is impossible to predict how much good anything can cause; therefore one should not commit murder for an unknown result. It is impossible for someone's aims to be pure if they use murder as a means. Raskolnikov's justification for murder - that some men are better than others - violates the most basic principles of human equality that hold true in the hearts of moral and ethical people. For these reasons and more, Raskolnikov is wrong.

Raskolnikov assumes that murder is a simple matter: kill the lion and the gazelles live happily ever after. In an ideal world this might be so, but reality is a much more complicated place. By trying to do good people can easily go awry, causing pain to the people they were trying to help. For instance, George W. Bush is trying to protect America from terrorism by sacrificing lives through the act of war. Hypothetically, Iraq could bomb America because America is at war with Iraq. Then inadvertently, Bush would be the cause of an attack on the United States solely because he decided that taking Iraqi lives would be a way to avoid a terrorist attack. This sort of situation is an example of the complications involved in committing murder for perceivable good.

Another ethical faux pas committed by Raskolnikov is the assumption that someone can still be morally clean after they commit a murder. Throughout Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov uses Napoleon as an example of someone who justifiably committed the act of murder because of the positive affects these murders would bring to humanity. Raskolnikov assumes that future generations will respect Napoleon despite the horrible deeds he committed. This is simply not true. Napoleon's brutality and conquest culminated in a formidable legacy few people would wish to see emulated. Throughout history, it stands true that murder has never spoken well for someone's reputation and Napoleon is certainly not remembered for his positive contributions to humanity.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "All men are created equal." In direct opposition to Jefferson's claim, Raskolnikov's theory that some men are better than others proves him to be a sociopath and a "louse". Aristotle wrote, "The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." This is an example of how the crime was not only against the women he murdered but society as a whole. This sort of thought process, if widely followed, could destroy a society.

Raskolnikov is a genius, in his own right, and manufactures a theory that can give him vindication for committing a murder. Despite his intelligence, he has overlooked the evidence that murder doesn't solve any problems and he creates an illogical answer to the question of the morality of murder. He was only able to overcome the glaring injustice of murder by overwhelming himself with a theoretical supposition that, as he says it, "an extraordinary man has the right...to overstep...certain obstacles...by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men."(Part III, Chapter V, Page 206) The wrongdoing of believing this (let alone acting on it) is a moral transgression unparalleled by any other crime.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor translation by McDuff, David (2002). Crime and Punishment. London: Penguin Books.