Introduction
In Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” Raskolnikov’s justification for committing murder raises a complex ethical issue. The character is sure that the old woman is malicious, petty, and useless to society and that her money would only benefit dishonest individuals. While this reasoning may hold some truth, it is essential to view broader implications.
From a moral perspective, the act of murder is universally condemned. Taking someone’s life is a critical violation of their inherent right to exist and contradicts the principles of empathy and compassion. Society has established legal grounds to address grievances and ensure justice is served.
Furthermore, Raskolnikov’s assumption that the old woman’s money would be taken by chisellers is speculative. While the main character’s justifications may evoke sympathy due to the perceived injustice of the antagonist’s existence, one should recognize that the ends do not justify the means. The condemnation of such actions is necessary due to society’s dedication to preserving the principles of law and order.
Inability to Separate Law from Morals
Regardless of any prerequisites, murder is universally recognized as a crime entailing the violation of ethical and moral rules. The act of taking someone’s life is an offense that infringes upon the fundamental right to life and the inherent value of human existence. Across jurisdictions, murder is severely punishable, reflecting society’s collective agreement on the sanctity of life. Thus, both from legal and moral perspectives, maintaining social order and protecting individuals from harm are the objectives to pursue by all means.
The purpose of laws against murder is to discourage potential perpetrators, deliver justice to victims, and ensure that punishment inevitably follows the crime. Moreover, no moral convictions should be taken as permission for such a crime. Raskolnikov himself, in doubt, tries to find an excuse for himself: “I didn’t do the murder to gain wealth and power and to become a benefactor of mankind” (Dostoyevsky, 1866, p. 387). However, no attempts to justify such an action may be viewed as objective, largely due to the unequal value of this deed in relation to the expected benefits.
Flawed Justifications
Raskolnikov’s attempt to rationalize his actions in “Crime and Punishment” is fundamentally flawed. Although it may be true that the old woman is malicious, cantankerous, and seemingly useless to society, these features do not allow anyone to take her life. Vigilante justice, as Dostoyevsky (1866) notes, undermines the principles of a just society. It disregards the established legal framework and takes matters into one’s own hands, bypassing due process and potentially leading to further harm and chaos. The decision to commit murder not only constitutes a criminal act but also contributes to a cycle of violence and disregard for the law.
Furthermore, the argument that the stolen money would only end up in the hands of dishonest individuals is speculative and presumptuous. It is not Raskolnikov’s role to determine the fate of the old woman’s possessions. Instead, he could have explored legal avenues to address his financial needs or sought assistance from charitable organizations. In a fair and orderly society, individuals are expected to respect the rule of law and rely on established systems to address grievances.
The thesis that Raskolnikov puts forward in one of the episodes cannot be considered objective: “Extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary” (Dostoyevsky, 1866, p. 241). While the main character’s frustrations with the old woman may evoke sympathy, it is essential to recognize that murder is a crime that cannot be justified in accordance with personal judgments or subjective justifications.
Additionally, Raskolnikov’s assumption that the stolen money would inevitably end up in the hands of dishonest individuals is based on speculation and lacks a solid foundation. Dostoyevsky (1866) illustrates that it is not his right to decide what will happen to the old woman’s belongings by highlighting the character’s internal suffering. Reporting any concerns to the authorities would be the appropriate line of action instead, enabling them to address the matter in a fair and legal manner.
By taking matters into his own hands and deciding to keep the stolen money for himself, the main character disregards the established legal processes that exist to address such situations. Reporting the circumstances to the authorities would enable a thorough investigation, ensuring that any ill-gotten gains are properly handled, and justice is served. As a result, engaging in vigilantism and assuming the role of judge and jury undermines the principles of a fair and orderly society.
Conclusion
The act of murdering the old woman for her money, as depicted in “Crime and Punishment,” cannot be justified. Regardless of internal motives and incentives, Raskolnikov had no right to control the fate of the other person, and murder clearly violates the basic principles of morality and ethics. Society has established legal systems to address grievances and ensure justice is served. Taking the law into one’s own hands undermines the fabric of fair and orderly coexistence, and it is essential to uphold the principle of legal governance and the value of human life.
Reference
Dostoyevsky, F. M. (1866). Crime and punishment (C. Garnett, Trans.). Feedbooks.