Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - Book Report/Review Example

Order 326795 Topic: Dostoevsky crime and punishmentIntroduction: Every action has the reaction and the intensity of the reaction is in proportion to the intensity of the action. No dispute exists between the spiritualists (moralists) and the scientists over this issue. The rare agreement between the two contending and opposing forces! The forces that do not see eye to eye with each other normally! When a criminal commits a heinous act like murder, either it is the reaction to some previous action, or he initiates a new action. The intensity of his feelings, the level of its revengefulness is not the same, at the time he commixed the crime, and as time rolls by. The wise saying goes—howsoever powerful may be the waves of an ocean their real nature is mere water! Once the crime is committed, a series of thought-currents related to the incidents begin to tax the brains of the perpetrator of the crime. They challenge his decision. In the introduction to the book it is observed, “….it is precisely from such an attempt to grapple with the moral implications of the social and cultural realities of the day that Dostoevsky produced a work whose timeliness increases rather than diminishes with the years.”(Introduction vi…) All murders are not calculated. Most of them are done at the time when one is seized with spontaneous anger and loses the mental equilibrium. As a consequence, the murderer has a life-time to regret. Even after undergoing the legal punishment for the heinous act committed, the trace of that action remains within the portal of the mind. For every murder, it is possible to detail the negative and positive consequences. The consequences of murdering a known criminal, the doer of many dastardly acts, can not be compared to the murder a Professor by a student, who failed him in the paper. Utilitarianism intervenes in such cases and makes an attempt to differentiate between right and wrong by measuring a decision based on its calculated worth. Having murdered the landlady, Raskolnikov tries to reason out the positive benefits that her money would do to the society. But this is just wishful thinking. Murder is a murder and the one who does not have the capacity to give life, has no right to stifle out any life. The one who understands the concept of utilitarianism in its true spirit, would find it difficult to accept and will resent the claim of Raskolnikov that his action of murdering the old woman can be accepted as morally right. A performer of the action can not be the judge of the merits/demerits of that action. One can’t be the lawyer and the judge for the same case. The sum of murder is not mathematics. To weigh murder in the scale of utilitarianism is wrong. Murders are not governed by the law of physics. Raskolnikovs mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to him, exemplifies the empirical view of utilitarianism. A utilitarian argument is simple and straightforward—Raskolikov has not arrived at an acceptable solution, for he has not solved the problem correctly. The final act can be turned under one platform—that of murder! But the processes are different. No two murder situations are alike. In the legal sense there is no justifiable or condonable murder at all. More correctly, no murder can permanently solve any problem. A non-utilitarian is justified while rejecting the notion of any further discussion about the murder by applying mathematical concepts. All secular actions, whether ‘good or bad’ are causes of the downfall of a human being. ‘Permanent good’ will not emerge out of any action. The results of all actions are conditional; they are governed by the time-value and the situational value. When the result of any action is not permanent, how can it contribute to permanent happiness? A utilitarian touches the borders of spirituality when he believes in two principles-the theory of right actions and the theory of value. But to derive the correct result of the working of these two principles is a tough task—rather it is not possible at all. The finality of the god or bad result of an action can never be decided; some sort of comparison can be made and the options can be the available best! A utilitarian should not think that whatever he does is correct. Rather, he should think that whatever correct is there in the world belongs to him. Raskolnikov employs the principle of utilitarianism from his fixed viewpoint. He works behind the closed doors. He finds perfect justification for the murder of his landlady. He has divided his life, and the life of the old woman in two watertight compartments. The world with the old woman and the world without her! He sees great merit in the second option and therefore, murders the old woman. He has no patience to wait for her death due to natural causes. Leave aside the supposed beneficial consequences on the society due to the murder of his landlady. Was he able to realize as to what would be the consequences of the act of murder immediately and subsequently? Will the intensity of his feelings, the impact of the results of his own action be the same for ever? Certainly not! He may even repent for his action in the changed circumstances in the society. But the strong premises of the utilitarian to negate the justification is, it does not fulfill the criteria of the key variables of utilitarianism and has not accurately and finally solved the problem. A utilitarian bases his beliefs on twin principles-the theory of value and the theory of right actions. These two principles work in tandem to serve as criteria for whether or not a utilitarian can conclude an action morally right. The argument for theory for right action is, its consequences need to be as good as any other available option. For example, I receive the bonus amount equivalent to my two months salary from my employer. I can spend the entire amount on a sight-seeing pleasure tour with my friends, or donate a major part of it to a non-governmental organization engaged in the philanthropic activities of providing education to physically handicapped children. Taking cue from the utilitarian principle, I need to judge which option is better than any other options/ alternatives possible. But the issue, what is the yardstick to judge the merits of the action, from amongst many options available remains unanswered. Now, consider the above option from the viewpoint of theory of value. This theory is based on the premises that pleasure is the only thing valuable in itself and as an end. Means and ends are inseparable parts of it. For the performer of the action, a moral dilemma is created. He has to weigh each alternative from the point of view of total amount of pleasure that each would produce and subtract the total amount of pain each alternative would generate. So, going on a pleasure trip would naturally give me lots of pleasure, the amount of pain, the pricking within my inner conscience, for not performing my loving duty to the physically challenged children merits serious consideration. This thought would reduce the quantum or degree of my pleasure. Some unfavorable incidents during the pleasure trip also will affect my expected pleasure. The news of sickness of my parents during the pleasure trip may create anxieties and rob the joy of the trip to some extent. This is a case of reduction in the quantum of pleasure. Utilitarianism demands something more from the agent. It is not concerned with only the short-term consequences of the decision and the sole effects on the agent. A third party is very much present that occupies the centre stage of the issue. What about the vast majority of people who are affected as the result of that decision and what are the quantum of pleasure or pain the incident has generated within them? For example the murder of the old woman might have brought happiness to just two individuals, and the remaining ninety-eight must have suffered anguish that a young man should have committed such a gory act against a helpless old woman? A right decision for an individual may be highly wrong one judged from the collective wisdom of the society. Utilitarianism veers round to democratic principles. It is more than the simple majority rule. Greatest good for the greatest numbers—this is utilitarianism is all about. Raskolnikov unhesitatingly employs utilitarianism and offers justification for the murder of his landlady. His options were clear cut: Murder the woman and hand over the money for the benefit of the society or let her live and watch the money squandered in a monastery upon her death due to natural causes. He concludes that the best course is to murder her. His justification is the distortion of the principle of utilitarianism. His action gives no permanent solutions. Leave aside bad options; even the good options have different merits. Raskolnikov fails to fulfill the requirements for the theory of right action. He does not take into account all the available options and concludes straightaway that the option availed by him is the best. Murdering the old woman is not the final solution for the betterment of the society. He could have stolen the money and spared the life of the old woman. If his concern for the society was that authentic, he could have chalked out a program for fund-raising. No pain is involved in this option. Raskolnikov’s option was drastic as well as desperate and on the top of it, surely he did no avail that option with a sound state of mind. Decision to kill was taken by Raskolnikov at a particular moment at a particular state of his mind. Will he be able to keep the same level of strong feelings, that killing attitude for all time to come? There is no such possibility. Howsoever powerful may be the waves of an ocean, their real nature is water. Once the mind attains the normal state, there is every chance that the individual, who committed a heinous crime, may repent, and even reform. This psychological transformation is possible when one understands and experiences the realms of spirituality. The inner core of every human being is essentially divine, even of the worst villain. It just needs to be revealed to him to help him align himself with his true personality. This revelation is not possible through outer means. It is the blazing fire of spirituality that can illuminate every aspect of one’s personality and chisel a totally transformed individual. Through spirituality one’s downward march to destruction can be replaced by an upward march making one a reformed individual. Dostoevsky introduces the finer points of spirituality by introducing the character of Sonya, a girl who was forced into prostitution to support her family. Though in the ignoble profession, Sonya is a noble character. Her motivations are pious; she does everything for the sake of others, for the family and the siblings. She is so profound that she is able to influence Raskolnikov’s mind in a positive way. She provides the healing touch to his deeply troubled psyche and plays the sheet anchor’s role in his life. Raskolnikov’s individual progress from darkness to light has been imaginatively portrayed by Dostoevsky. The story of transformation is the vital part of the book. His private suffering is poignantly described by the author. The process is more tortuous, than his life behind the bars to undergo imprisonment as per the secular laws of the land. He did suffer from serious flaws in his personality and he was firmly convinced that he can escape his crime. The author tackles this development and progression in the personality of Raskolnikov and writes succinctly, “If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be punishment..." (p. 246) Raskolnikov has been rightly shown by the author as a multi-dimensional character. His emotions fluctuate from one extreme to the other. From selfish isolation, he touches to the borders of spirituality. He once denied the love of man and God. A transformed Raskolnikov later confesses, "Sonia, I have a bad heart, take note of that. It may explain a great deal." (p383). The author shows with great skill the tragic consequences, when negativities submerge the soul in darkness and his total isolation from everything. "It seemed to him, he had cut himself off from everyone and from everything at that moment." (p109) Among others, two themes in the book are important and they are intelligently highlighted through the characterization of Raskolnikov. They are (1) Alienation from Society and (2) The Psychology of Crime and Punishment. Alienation from Society: Raskolnikov’s pride blocks and obstructs his progress. He is in the society, yet he is out it. He keeps the deliberate distance, thinks that he is superior and different from all other people and can not mix freely with anyone. He is scheming, how to take advantage of other people for his selfish ends and that was the foundation for his living philosophy. He commits murders, doesn’t show regret for it but that is only the superficial part of his personality. His guilt hurts him from within. The impact of the sin that he tries to suppress throws him to half-delirium. People wish to help him through the crisis, but he is adamant and rejects their goodwill. Those who are sympathetic to him include Sonya, Dunya, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Razumikhin, and even Porfiry Petrovich. The law of divine retribution catches up with him and he suffers the consequences of ill-will towards the society. He reaches a stage, where alienation becomes intolerable. Finally he admits that he loves Sonya and the wall of ego collapses. He breaks the barrier of self-centeredness, eager to join the mainstream of the society. The Psychology of Crime and Punishment: The novel does not address crime and punishment in the legal sense. The law of the land will take its own course and chase an individual for the crime that he has committed; the punishment may be immediate, it may happen much later. But what is important is the process of delivery of justice. The human mind is such wonderful ‘automatic machinery’ and it will never let go an individual scot-free. It punishes one in style. One may escape from the clutches of law but not from the immutable laws that govern the inner world of an individual. Negativities seize Raskolnikov from all ends. The guilt-consciousness sets fire to his heart. That he is behind the bars is actually an insignificant part of his life. His real punishment is from within. He turns out to be a psychological wreck, totally cynical! His choices in life had narrowed down to going mad or to confess. In that state of mind, Dostoevsky portrays Raskolnikov with great authority, probing the enlightenment that is about to engulf him to make him a different type of personality. With deep insight into human nature and psychology, some of his observations are: "I have noticed more than once in my life that husbands dont quite get on with their mothers-in-law." (p37) "Even the poorest and most broken-spirited people are sometimes liable to these paroxysms of pride and vanity which take the form of an irresistible nervous craving." (p350) "And do you know, Sonia, that low ceilings and tiny rooms cramp the soul and the mind?" (p386) Conclusion: Characters in a story by any author will reveal something about the essential characteristics of the author. Howsoever intelligently the author may try; such experiences can not be swept under the carpet. Dostoyevsky has undergone unbelievable experiences. A criminal is abused on either side, before and after committing the crimes, only the pattern of abuse and the authorities abusing may change. He, therefore, turns to criminal acts. After the act is committed, the possibilities of self-abuse also cannot be ruled out. When he is constantly nagged, condemned and ostracized by society and the law enforcing authorities, the prison management, fellow prisoners, he turns into a viler and bitter individual. It is not easy for a criminal to forget the past and begin the process of building a new identity. This building process has been tackled imaginatively by the author. The inner transformation is not an ordinary happening in the life of an individual. Sonia is the torch bearer of divinity in the life of Raskolnikov. Repentance is a great boon to seek liberation from darkness and seek light. The author speaks about the highest level of spirituality when he writes, “He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering. But that is the beginning of a new story - the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life." (p505) The philosophical implications of the book are great and the story shows how a totally wrecked individual finds his mooring in life and tries to reform and rehabilitate. ****************** Works Cited: Dostoevsky, Fyodor (Author) Garnett, Constance (Author).Crime and Punishment; Bantam Classics (October 15, 1996) Read More