Crime and Punishment: Why Raskolnikov’s Actions Are not Justifiable

The actions Raskolnikov takes in “Crime and Punishment” are not justifiable and should not have taken place. According to Emmanuel Kant philosophy, an individual and the entire society should first consider whether an action that they are taking can become a universal law or not. From this perspective, it implies that Raskolnikov’s actions were not justified because the approach cannot be adopted by everyone on solving problems similar to those. If societies were run in such a manner, murder cases would be common and normalized, with everyone killing with the support for some reasons that are not justifiable.

Although Raskolnikov gives an argument about the character of Alyona Ivanova which could be an image that could be portrayed by many people in the society, killing her was not the best action to take and should never have been considered (Dostoyevsky & Ready, 2014). Raskolnikov also vindicated that if Alyona was found dead, then, her money would be taken by chisellers. So, he justifies that he would use the money better by paying for her education. From the utilitarian ethics perspective, killing Alyona was not the best move for Raskolnikov. He could have considered other actions that could have produced a better outcome than those he took.

The expected outcome of murder, in this case, is that the pettiness, malice, and uselessness of Alyona were eliminated while her money was well utilized after her death. Raskolnikov must have considered the idea of killing Alyona over a very long time as it can be seen in chapter 1, according to Dostoyevsky & Ready (2014), where he asks “Are you always at home alone, your sister is not here with you?” However, from the utilitarian ethics, the action does not produce the best happiness nor prevent pain; there were other actions like stealing the money that could be acceptable under the utilitarian ethics than murder. Also, considering that he killed for his own personal benefit rather than the overall benefit of the society, it shows that it could be a selfish move.

The right to live should also be respected and everyone gave a fair chance to live their life the way they wish and considering that laws exist and enforcement bodies have the authority to take action for justice, the act of murdering a person should be avoided. Raskolnikov was motivated by a speech by two officers whose views resonated with his as they tried to justify the need to kill Alyona where one said, “Of course she does not deserve to live but there it is, its nature” then their partner responds “Oh, well brother, but we have to correct and direct nature” (Dostoyevsky & Ready, 2014). Such views motivated Raskolnikov but the general feeling and views cannot be used to justify or define the morality of an action.

If the motive was to acquire money and make good use of it, regardless of whether murder or theft was used, it was against the moral of the society even though the victim worked hard to acquire it. It is, however, clear that even Raskolnikov was doubting his plans as he said, “And how could such an atrocious thing come to my head?” (Dostoyevsky & Ready, 2014). Adapting such actions in the society would, thus, promote laziness and discourage hard work, because individuals could take advantage to judge the rich and extort money from them. It serves to discourage them from working hard because the same could happen while promoting laziness because people could feel right doing the same.

The murder of Alyona could not be acceptable, from my own perspective, and considering that Raskolnikov went ahead to kill Alyona’s sister who happened to witness the murder and stealing of the cash, it just shows how immoral the action was and had to be hidden by killing another completely innocent person. Also, Raskolnikov took the whole case on himself without giving Alyona the right of listening and expressing her views on the case which could have justified her actions and character and also give the authority a chance to punish her considerably.

One of the likely response or view is that Raskolnikov’s action of murdering Alyona was wrong, but she deserved some punishment and losing her money. I would object the second part considering that Alyona’s was being judged without hearing and that society members should not judge and punish other members. There are set systems for seeking justice where such issues could be raised. The right authority would enforce appropriate punishment for such issues (Tannsjo, 2015). Such moves of punishing fellow society members for what we do not like about them may cause chaos and destabilize the society.

Another view could be that the act of murdering Alyona was justifiable considering that different government has managed to justify previous cases of torturing suspected terrorists. However, from such perspectives, it should be noted that with the current laws, an improved approach to such cases exist and also the outcome of such produces a greater amount of good to a greater number of people. An example is like when a terrorist knows of a planned attack in the country that may lead to a potential death of thousands of people, then, the utilitarian ethics justifies the act of torturing them to get information. The situation, however, is different from the case of Alyona because it involves the loss of life. Additionally, while the outcome of the action does not produce a greater good to a greater number of people, it favors only the killer and also leads to another death of Alyona’s sister who witnessed the murder.

References

1. Dostoyevsky, F., & Ready, O. (2014). Crime and punishment. New York : Penguin Books.
2. Tannsjo, T. (2015). Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing. Oxford : University Press.