Why was Raskolnivkov wrong

[DEFEATER]

I have been obsessing over the meaning of this book (see my other crime and punishment thread). What my question basically comes down to is: why was he wrong? Why does he think his theory was unsuccessful?
The author (can't spell it from memory) does such a great job presenting WHY he does the murders, but a short or poor job on why he should not have done them. Please help

[edsev@hotmail]

Raskolnikov divides individuals between those who have power to decide for others - the powerful, and those who are powerless and are designed by nature to adhere to what the powerful decide on. Those with power have no limitations - they can do what they want. To these Raskolnikov attaches the likes of Napoleon or you could even say that Hitler would fall into this class of individuals. Why that theory fails is the fact that by taking himself to be a Napoleon, he tries to test the theory through killing the lady borrower and even kills her sister by accident. The idea that you kill for own personal needs is horrible and against the human morals. By killing he kills something within himself - he kills humanity and has to go through a long journey of suffering and acceptance that what he did was wrong in order to be accepted back to the human race!

[DEFEATER]

but thats illogical. I'm not looking for some premise that says killing kills your insides. I'm not making horcruxes! Is there a valid reason without asserting that all murder is wrong? What about murder that helps the whole society? Like Raskolnikov's cover up plan in the begining?

[weltanschauung]

he isnt wrong. society is.

[DEFEATER]

anyone, feel free to post. I need some great answers

[Dodo25]

Just finished the book, I started it 30 hours ago and finished it in two sessions, a night's sleep in between :)

In the last Part, Raskolnikoff has this dream about germs that infect humans and make them all think they're experts on science & morality, yet each view differs from the others and people end up mistrusting each other and slaugthering each other. Certainly, the objection, brought forth by Porphyrius Petrovich, of 'how to know you're one of those extraordinary humans?' is a key problem with the protagonist's philosophy.

I'm not sure about the following, but IMO the key reason it fails in the book is that Raskolnikoff never actually repents what he did. Not even the Elizabeth's death troubles him much. I think I remember in the beginning, in that first conversation with Petrovitch about the article, there was some question about Napoleon repenting. Either way, after Raskolnikoff confessed to Sonia, she (and later, Douna too) are repelled by his reasoning. His lack of conscience almost destroys everything. In a way, he indeed 'broke something in himself' which cut him off from values like 'human decency' and empathy. He couldn't love anymore, he only started to love Sonia after a year of repenting, and realizing the sacrifices she has made for him and others.

This is how I interpreted the book at least. My personal opinions on the subject are somewhat different, I agree to a certain extent that killing for the greater good can be justified, yet only in extreme circumstances.

And by the way, there's an interesting passage in 'The Brothers Karamazov', where Ivan talks about the suffering of a small child not being worth all the knowledge in the world. It's in the chapter 'Mutiny' -- if I remember correctly. Interestingly enough, that's the opposite of what Raskolnikoff says, and that coming from an atheist/nihilist as well!

[Brielle92]

And by the way, there's an interesting passage in 'The Brothers Karamazov', where Ivan talks about the suffering of a small child not being worth all the knowledge in the world. It's in the chapter 'Mutiny' -- if I remember correctly. Interestingly enough, that's the opposite of what Raskolnikoff says, and that coming from an atheist/nihilist as well!

I would've never compared those two passages, thank you! Especially since I think about what Ivan said all the time.

I'm still forming my opinion on C&P but so far I think that Raskolnikov failed because in his theory he says that the extraordinary have the right to step over that line, but he didn't anticipate that he would feel guilty afterwards. I think guilt is the difference between him and "Napoleon" (albeit I know nothing about him). I feel like if Raskolnikov wouldn't have felt guilty, then he would've felt he succeeded, because without guilt then what's stopping him from killing someone else? Unfortunately I think Rask took his guilty conscience as a weakness (I don't agree) and eventually did the right thing. To me, all those extraordinary men just seem like criminals. But hey, maybe Ivan Karamazov's girl has gotten me a bit soft.

[Darcy88]

Droves of people are backseat Robespierres, condoning or supporting murder for the so-called "common good." Murder is species of madness. Only psychopaths kill without feeling remorse. Most soldiers go through immense psychological turmoil after they serve their missions. Murder is inhuman. You ask why Raskolnikov was wrong and I answer that murder goes against not only our human "values," but against psychological health and equanimity in general. The fact that people do not understand this is the result of over thinking. People can think themselves into the clouds, their feet miles off the ground, speculating baselessly. Its not what you think, its what you do, and what Raskolnikov did was SICK.

[seaofmilktea]

I would've never compared those two passages, thank you! Especially since I think about what Ivan said all the time.

I'm still forming my opinion on C&P but so far I think that Raskolnikov failed because in his theory he says that the extraordinary have the right to step over that line, but he didn't anticipate that he would feel guilty afterwards. I think guilt is the difference between him and "Napoleon" (albeit I know nothing about him). I feel like if Raskolnikov wouldn't have felt guilty, then he would've felt he succeeded, because without guilt then what's stopping him from killing someone else? Unfortunately I think Rask took his guilty conscience as a weakness (I don't agree) and eventually did the right thing. To me, all those extraordinary men just seem like criminals. But hey, maybe Ivan Karamazov's girl has gotten me a bit soft.




I buy this interpretation.

[WyattGwyon]

I buy this interpretation.

Yep. I always saw it the way Brielle 92 stated it.

[Pierce]

Exactly. Raskolnikov is a character who is held captive by his own mind, the murder of that woman, while it may have seemed justifiable on the outside, was simply a means to the end of raskolnikovs inner struggle. He was saved at the end by Sonya's unfailing love. Really, I think that may have been the most important lesson in the book, that after torturing yourself with those kind of thoughts and then having acted out on it with dark consequences to follow, what do you do? You submit to love or to a power greater than yourself.

[Printer's Devil]

Why was Raskolnikov wrong? Interesting question! I personally think Dostoyevsky got it completely wrong, since he was looking at the situation from a 19th century viewpoint (but then again, maybe he was just sticking close enough to 19th century moral values to escape censorship...?). Raskolnokov decides, on the basis of his superior intellect and current poverty, that an unpleasant and unpopular person who happens to be quite well off is intrinsically inferior to him to the point where it's perfectly OK to murder her and take her money for his own benefit so long as he can get away with it. By today's standards, he's a psychopath. He's not wrong in his own eyes because he doesn't understand the concept. It's true that people, usually those who are rather young and naive, who have been heavily indoctrinated in some belief-system may do terrible things and think it's right, but Raskolnikov literally has no-one to blame but himself. He was short of money, somebody he didn't like had money, so he came up with a philosophical justification why it was OK for him to split her skull with an axe. He's a psychopath. Period.

Where Dostoyevsky goes wrong is assuming that everybody has morals somewhere deep down. His other novel "The Devils" is a far better treatment of this theme. Stavrogin impulsively commits one horrendous act, and that glimpse into the darkest depths of his soul is too much for him to bear. But he doesn't succumb to a convenient attack of "brain fever" (a non-existent ailment which everybody in the 19th century, especially people in countries where uninhibited displays of strong emotion were common, such as Russia, thought was real, but which was in truth a composite of everything from getting a bit over-excited to meningitis) and babble out the details to any cops who happen to be in the room. He continues to act more or less normally throughout the book, while slowly but inexorably falling apart from the inside.

Stavrogin would, if he lived in the real world, be a better person than Raskolnikov. He does something absolutely dreadful on a momentary impulse, but he instantly knows it was a horrible thing to do. And this one impulsive act, and its consequences, reveal a personal truth that he cannot get away from. He has a conscience, and from that moment on, he's doomed, because he literally cannot live with himself. But Raskolnikov? He's spent months persuading himself that murder is just fine, because humans who happen to resemble himself are Supermen, and other people aren't. He's a psychopath, plain an simple! So it's somewhat unrealistic that when, in the course of his execution of pre-meditated first-degree murder for no purpose other than personal gain, he has to kill a completely irrelevant mentally retarded woman as well, he feels that guilty about it.

Though actually it's Dostoyevsky's way of saying that, had he not killed a genuinely innocent person by mistake, Raskolnikov probably wouldn't have given a damn. A wee bit of camouflage there for the Russian censors, perhaps...? And by the way, anyone, however superficially unpleasant, who cares for a mentally disabled relative (who by 19th century standards was officially inferior to other human beings) is a lot better overall than Raskolnikov, who has to learn (unconvincingly) how to care about anyone at all.

Raskolnikov killed two people from sheer arrogance, and then panicked and started whining. He has elements of both major forms of psychopath - aggressive and inadequate. Both can be horribly persuasive. In reality, Sonya (along with his best buddy, who is throughout the book presented as ludicrously optimistic and a bit thick) is in for a very rude awakening. Stavrogin is a flawed human being who knows it all along, and achieves no false redemption because after what he did, it's impossible. Raskolnikov is just a hypocrite. See also "A Clockwork Orange", with which this novel has surprising parallels. Which, given the literary erudition of Anthony Burgess, are probably not accidental.

If I got too metatextual there, feel free to argue. It could get interesting!

[SentimentalSlop]

Why was Raskolnikov wrong? Interesting question! I personally think Dostoyevsky got it completely wrong, since he was looking at the situation from a 19th century viewpoint (but then again, maybe he was just sticking close enough to 19th century moral values to escape censorship...?). Raskolnokov decides, on the basis of his superior intellect and current poverty, that an unpleasant and unpopular person who happens to be quite well off is intrinsically inferior to him to the point where it's perfectly OK to murder her and take her money for his own benefit so long as he can get away with it. By today's standards, he's a psychopath. He's not wrong in his own eyes because he doesn't understand the concept. It's true that people, usually those who are rather young and naive, who have been heavily indoctrinated in some belief-system may do terrible things and think it's right, but Raskolnikov literally has no-one to blame but himself. He was short of money, somebody he didn't like had money, so he came up with a philosophical justification why it was OK for him to split her skull with an axe. He's a psychopath. Period.

Where Dostoyevsky goes wrong is assuming that everybody has morals somewhere deep down. His other novel "The Devils" is a far better treatment of this theme. Stavrogin impulsively commits one horrendous act, and that glimpse into the darkest depths of his soul is too much for him to bear. But he doesn't succumb to a convenient attack of "brain fever" (a non-existent ailment which everybody in the 19th century, especially people in countries where uninhibited displays of strong emotion were common, such as Russia, thought was real, but which was in truth a composite of everything from getting a bit over-excited to meningitis) and babble out the details to any cops who happen to be in the room. He continues to act more or less normally throughout the book, while slowly but inexorably falling apart from the inside.

Stavrogin would, if he lived in the real world, be a better person than Raskolnikov. He does something absolutely dreadful on a momentary impulse, but he instantly knows it was a horrible thing to do. And this one impulsive act, and its consequences, reveal a personal truth that he cannot get away from. He has a conscience, and from that moment on, he's doomed, because he literally cannot live with himself. But Raskolnikov? He's spent months persuading himself that murder is just fine, because humans who happen to resemble himself are Supermen, and other people aren't. He's a psychopath, plain an simple! So it's somewhat unrealistic that when, in the course of his execution of pre-meditated first-degree murder for no purpose other than personal gain, he has to kill a completely irrelevant mentally retarded woman as well, he feels that guilty about it.

Though actually it's Dostoyevsky's way of saying that, had he not killed a genuinely innocent person by mistake, Raskolnikov probably wouldn't have given a damn. A wee bit of camouflage there for the Russian censors, perhaps...? And by the way, anyone, however superficially unpleasant, who cares for a mentally disabled relative (who by 19th century standards was officially inferior to other human beings) is a lot better overall than Raskolnikov, who has to learn (unconvincingly) how to care about anyone at all.

Raskolnikov killed two people from sheer arrogance, and then panicked and started whining. He has elements of both major forms of psychopath - aggressive and inadequate. Both can be horribly persuasive. In reality, Sonya (along with his best buddy, who is throughout the book presented as ludicrously optimistic and a bit thick) is in for a very rude awakening. Stavrogin is a flawed human being who knows it all along, and achieves no false redemption because after what he did, it's impossible. Raskolnikov is just a hypocrite. See also "A Clockwork Orange", with which this novel has surprising parallels. Which, given the literary erudition of Anthony Burgess, are probably not accidental.

If I got too metatextual there, feel free to argue. It could get interesting!

I have to disagree with you that Dostoevsky got it "wrong." Raskolnikov didn't kill because he wanted to better humanity, he just wanted to kill to see if he could do it--he wanted to see if he could be like the "great men" of the world throughout history (ex. Napolean) who had immense power and radical ideas with little to no conscience to help them carry it out. Raskolnikov, among some of Dostoevsky's other famous characters, represents the abuse of human reason. Now, Dostoevsky is not attacking reason. He is just criticizing people who strive to live by reason alone. You often hear people tout their support of science and reason while rejecting religion, but what Dostoevsky is saying is that there is no room for mercy unless one believes in God. People can be nice and merciful without God, sure, but what reason could you give to convince someone who is merciless and cruel why they should love others? Because it's the "nice thing" to do? That's not a reason. Try to convince someone why they shouldn't murder if they can get away with it without bringing God into the picture. If someone can get away with murder, or other crimes, and they are willing to do it, why is it wrong? It's not wrong, nor is it good, because without an eternal God, everything is neutral--everything is on the table, up for grabs, for anyone who's big enough to handle it. In other words, there is no ultimate justice. It's the jungle, and the biggest dog wins. It's animal.

Raskolnikov fancies himself as one of these intellectuals (because he went to college for a bit and soaked up a bunch of ideas without going out into the real world, good for him), and thinks he's special. He convinces himself he's doing something for the benefit of humanity, but it's really all about him. The more emphasis he puts on the benefit of the masses, the more he hates the individual. It's another one of these little pokes Dostoevsky makes at the college elite--the notion that we're all smart, that if we just have the right liberal, marxist ideas we can change the world for the better, everyone is special, everyone gets a gold star--that kind of thing. Dostoevsky is embodying the worst and most extreme product of that philosophy in Raskolnikov. It's that philosophy taken to its logical end. That's another thing Dostoevsky emphasizes: almost all people fail to take their ideas all the way, and therefore are ignorant of the things their beliefs can enable. It's kind of scary, if you think about it.

Dostoevsky is emphasizing the fact that most people do not want to live in a world like this, even those people who assert otherwise. The only way we'll be able to live in a merciful world with reason on our side is with the belief in God--an eternal absolute who balances the scales of both justice and mercy, reason and emotion. Dostoevsky is proposing the idea that maybe, just by the inclinations of our human nature, all of us possess a conscience, whether we exercise it or not. But, of course, the conscience often contradicts human reason. It's often very unreasonable, but what if there is another measure of reason that is beyond human reason--something divine, something immortal, something absolute that has dominion over the limits of human reason? If we admit God exists, the human conscience makes sense. Reason alone just doesn't do it for people. We're irrational creatures, and maybe there's a reason for that beyond the limits of human knowledge that we need to seek out in order to make sense of it.

Raskolnikov tries to completely reject his conscience and live by reason alone under the guise of "compassion." He basically wants to have his cake and eat it too. People often assert that you can be moral without God--yes, that's true, but that doesn't make your morals any better than anyone else's. It's all relative and meaningless. You need something to back it up and make it true--something that will never die. The answer to that problem is God.

But, of course, Raskolnikov feels bad. He goes insane from his conscience just tormenting him. His spiritual sickness is more horrible than anything he's ever experienced--it's literally killing him.

I think most people look at Raskolnikov and think he's some character who's one in a million, but he's actually quite relatable. He's you and me, just with more balls. lol.