Crime and Punishment was the book I enjoyed reading the most. Dostoevsky succeeded to create a real character in which I could mentally align myself with while reading the book; I felt the same emotions as the main character, Raskolnikov. Although Raskolnikov murdered Alyona Ivanonva early on in the book, the rest of the book kept my attention because of Raskolnikov’s punishment. In class, we discussed why Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker. There were several reasons thrown out and discussed; however, while students were talking about the reasons Raskolnikov murdered, I was thinking about the ethical decision he made. Readers may not notice but Fyodor Dostoevsky talks about ethics a lot in his book Crime and Punishment. A major conflict
…show more content…
The first similarity we see between the two is Nietzsche’s representation of a world that is divided into two categories; the powerful and the not. This description directly mirrors that of Crime and Punishment in how Dostoevsky breaks down the world Raskolnikov lives in as a hierarchal structure; the ordinary and extraordinary. For example, “according to the law of nature, into two categories: a lower or, so to speak, material category (the ordinary) … and people proper—that is, those who have the gift or talent of speaking a new word in their environment” (Dostoevsky 260). This system of division is the main issue Raskolnikov deals with. He wants to move from one subset to another, and in doing so, he has no regard for anyone else but himself. This disregard for societal norms and boundaries is what brings the comparison full circle. Nietzsche argues that the “ordinary” will do whatever is necessary to move up that social ladder; only focused on self-gratification. This is much like Raskolnikov in how, refusing help from others, he makes the decision to advance on his own. This self-propulsion to get ahead; without regard to ethics, is ultimately the downfall of the protagonist. “One needs, for the sake of his idea, to step even over a dead body, over …show more content…
After he killed the pawnbroker lady it said, “At first he thought he would lose his mind.” (Dostoevsky 89) He faints, he has hallucinations, and he thinks he is going crazy and starts to wonder why he actually killed the old pawnbroker lady. Raskolnikov is in a different state of mind until he confesses at the end of the book. This contradicts his thesis at the beginning. Raskolnikov thought he was an extraordinary man that could do extraordinary things, like murder an innocent lady, however, he punished himself after the crime. If Raskolnikov were an extraordinary man he would have no guilt and would not punish himself for his crime. An adequately respectable cause is one that does so much good that it outweighs the crime; however, there was no good out of Raskolnikov’s crime.
I experienced philosophy and ethics prior to reading Crime and Punishment so this book really intrigued me with the ethical principles. I enjoyed reading the book and experiencing the transformation of characters, such as Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov believed he could be an extraordinary man but once he acted on his deep, dark thoughts he punished himself, which is moral. The major ethical dilemma in the book is ordinary versus extraordinary, and in the end Raskolnikov experiences the outcomes of committing a
The first similarity we see between the two is Nietzsche’s representation of a world that is divided into two categories; the powerful and the not. This description directly mirrors that of Crime and Punishment in how Dostoevsky breaks down the world Raskolnikov lives in as a hierarchal structure; the ordinary and extraordinary. For example, “according to the law of nature, into two categories: a lower or, so to speak, material category (the ordinary) … and people proper—that is, those who have the gift or talent of speaking a new word in their environment” (Dostoevsky 260). This system of division is the main issue Raskolnikov deals with. He wants to move from one subset to another, and in doing so, he has no regard for anyone else but himself. This disregard for societal norms and boundaries is what brings the comparison full circle. Nietzsche argues that the “ordinary” will do whatever is necessary to move up that social ladder; only focused on self-gratification. This is much like Raskolnikov in how, refusing help from others, he makes the decision to advance on his own. This self-propulsion to get ahead; without regard to ethics, is ultimately the downfall of the protagonist. “One needs, for the sake of his idea, to step even over a dead body, over …show more content…
After he killed the pawnbroker lady it said, “At first he thought he would lose his mind.” (Dostoevsky 89) He faints, he has hallucinations, and he thinks he is going crazy and starts to wonder why he actually killed the old pawnbroker lady. Raskolnikov is in a different state of mind until he confesses at the end of the book. This contradicts his thesis at the beginning. Raskolnikov thought he was an extraordinary man that could do extraordinary things, like murder an innocent lady, however, he punished himself after the crime. If Raskolnikov were an extraordinary man he would have no guilt and would not punish himself for his crime. An adequately respectable cause is one that does so much good that it outweighs the crime; however, there was no good out of Raskolnikov’s crime.
I experienced philosophy and ethics prior to reading Crime and Punishment so this book really intrigued me with the ethical principles. I enjoyed reading the book and experiencing the transformation of characters, such as Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov believed he could be an extraordinary man but once he acted on his deep, dark thoughts he punished himself, which is moral. The major ethical dilemma in the book is ordinary versus extraordinary, and in the end Raskolnikov experiences the outcomes of committing a