Crime and Punishment is a philosophical/psychological novel written by Fyodor Dostoevsky that was first published in 1866. Dostoevsky asks some fundamental questions about morality and does a downright remarkable job at investigating down to the deep core of the questions. For those who enjoy literature, this is a very deep novel with a lot of symbolism. You could have hour long conversations about the scene on a single page if you really wanted too. Even if that isn’t something you are interested in, it is still a great book that is interesting to read, even not digging into the deeper meaning it contains.
Morality of murder
Essentially, the book is about the main character, Raskolnikov, murdering an old pawnbroker woman. Don’t worry about this being a spoiler as this is the basis of the plot and very close to the beginning of the novel. Due to his logical reasoning through his motives for the murder, he felt completely justified. The pawnbroker was known to take advantage of many people, typically deep in poverty, when they were pawning their things to her. She also had a mentally challenged niece that she would treat much like a slave. On top of this, Raskolnikov had conversations with other students at the university in which they said the world would be better off without the old pawnbroker.
So, is it morally justifiable to kill someone who everyone hates or that hurts others to the point that to end their life would literally save the lives of others? From Raskolnikov’s perspective, to adhere to the law in this case was akin to cowardice, and by doing so he would have been simply adhering to convention rather than some fundamental moral rule. Raskolnikov was wrestling with the idea of God, which is arguably about the concept of a fundamental set of moral rules that govern humanity. This moral code that derives from religion is the basis for the laws that govern society. In short, Raskolnikov was using logical reasoning, rather than religion, as his moral compass, and this led him to murder the pawnbroker.
Questions raised for Crime and Punishment
Introducing another subject of Dostoevsky’s commentary. Why did Raskolnikov get to decide to kill the pawnbroker? Why should he be able to choose who lives and who doesn’t? By his belief in God deteriorating, it seems as if Raskolnikov decided that he would take his place and play the role of God. This sort of God complex is a massive rabbit hole and could be the topic of another post but is definitely something worth some thought over as it lays bare one of the darkest sides of humanity that it seems a lot of people are afraid to study.
Logical reason v. religion: the ethics
The rules that are generally accepted as moral (not to murder, steal, lie, etc.), all have roots in religion. So basically, the basic fundamental ethics of society are based off of religion, but if you were to get rid of the religion, you cannot keep the fundamental propositions of that religion. This is one of the concepts Dostoevsky seems to explore with Raskolnikov. By arguing against the existence of God, Raskolnikov found that all he has left was logical reasoning. That left to its own devises directly led to Raskolnikov being convinced that murdering to pawnbroker was a moral action.
The major contrast Dostoevsky illuminates is between traditional orthodox Christianity of the other characters and the rational, more scientific thought of Raskolnikov in making ethical decisions. For the most part, basic laws in society are predicated on religion, and as stated above, religion gives us a moral code by which to live our lives. Therefore, by basing his personal ethics on rational thought rather than religion, Raskolnikov began to think of himself as above the law. This manifests in Raskolnikov’s article, in which he explains his belief in those extraordinary men who contribute much intellect to their society are above the law. As an example of this type of man, he gives Napoleon, who Raskolnikov tries to compare himself to in order to prove his theory.
Repercussions
An interesting situation arises when Raskolnikov is unexpectedly filled with remorse after he commits the murders. He had the perfect ability to get away with it, but his conscience would not let him. According to his theory based on logic, the world should have been a better place with the death of the pawnbroker, but Raskolnikov finds himself being mentally unbalanced as his conscience prevents him from moving passed his actions. He has a massive ideological battle between his brainchild of morality based on reasoning and the traditional morality given by Christianity based on suffering and redemption for his sin.
This leads to the meaning in the title. One can take it quite literal and say the crime is the murders Raskolnikov commits, and the punishment is the possibility of him going to prison in Siberia. However, that seems too superficial to me to be honest. After completing the novel, and thinking within the context and symbolism Dostoevsky presents, I think he could have meant the crime was Raskolnikov’s divergence from religion and belief and the punishment is his internal struggle with his conscience as he created his own mental purgatory that developed throughout the novel. It is arguable that the mental purgatory a person can create for themselves can be worse than prison, as they are living with the amount of regret, suffering and terror that Raskolnikov exhibits.
Characters and Symbols from Crime and Punishment
With the above information about Raskolnikov in mind, it is interesting to think of him as the embodiment of the ideology that was the foundation of the Russian revolution. If you don’t know much about the history of the Russian revolution, it is definitely something to look into. Contrary to the main character, his love, Sonia, becomes a reason for Raskolnikov to ultimately come back to faith. As a woman who prostitutes herself in order to provide for her family, she ironically becomes the moral compass for Raskolnikov, especially as she begged him to confess and to pay his dues through suffering.
Raskolnikov’s moral dilemma is exhibited in two other people that are used as symbols: Napoleon and Lazarus. Napoleon is described as the epitome of Raskolnikov’s theory of the types of men. Raskolnikov believes him to be a great leader and a man who is so extraordinary that he has both the right and the responsibility to shed blood. Referring back to Raskolnikov’s article, Napoleon is one of those people who are above the law and have no reason to conform to mere moral conventions as the laws seem to be. By committing the murders, Raskolnikov is attempting to put himself in that same category of man as Napoleon, as he explicitly states to Sonia later in the book.
Another person that Raskolnikov idolized is Lazarus from the Bible. Practically commanding Sonia to read the story of his revival, Raskolnikov is adamant in his belief of the Lazarus story even as he questions his own faith. Essentially, Lazarus symbolizes the promise of a new life found through faith for Raskolnikov, however, he must be revived through suffering and repentance.
Objective or Subjective?
As I read more into the novel and I began to realize the questions that Dostoevsky was asking, I realized that he was asking questions that are very similar to mine. Basically, is this higher power objective of subjective? If it is objective, then it sort of permeates the entire universe in much the same way as the Logos does in Stoicism, where the logos is a sort of substance of benevolent logic that is everything.
On the other hand, if the idea of God is subjective, then its entire existence is predicated on the perspective of the specific individual. This is sort of implied when you ask someone if they believe in God because when you ask such a thing, the words “believe”, and “god” can have vastly different meanings between different individuals. It is definitely worth further thought and discussion because there is much more to it than this. Should I leave this paragraph in the post?
Conclusions
Ultimately, Crime and Punishment raises the question of what exactly our morality should be based upon. Should we base our moral decisions on religion or a more scientific logical reasoning? A mixture of the two? Also, the idea of a god complex within a person is definitely worth study. It is something that everyone has to some degree, it leads directly to the concept of power, and hopefully the question of if you have such power, should you use it? Just because you are able to do something and get away with it in legal terms, does not mean you will go unpunished. You might possibly find yourself going down the same unexpected path as Raskolnikov. No one can create the perfect version of your hell than you can, and you might just find yourself hoping to become Lazarus as a way out of it.
Just as a heads up, this post will probably be revised and expanded a lot. Crime and Punishment is not a small novel, at about 440 pages and being very dense in meaning, there is a lot to talk about. The concepts and questions that Dostoevsky proposes are fascinating and must the given further thought and discussion.
To your wealth and future,
James Forsythe
For more philosophy posts
https://jamesdforsythe.com/tag/philosophy/
To find Crime and Punishment
There are so many different translations of this book that here is the amazon page so you can choose your own. the one I have is the second translation by Constance Garnett in 1914.
