Utilitarianism In Crime And Punishment

“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” - Leon Trotsky. This quote closely relates to a philosophy that became popular in Russia in the 1860’s- utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophy defined as the idea of the moral worth of an action is determined only by the contribution to the overall utility, the contribution of happiness or pleasure among all people. Meaning, the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its outcome. Moral choices and ethical dilemmas are discussed in Russian literature during the 19th century such as Fyodor Dostoevsky’s, Crime and Punishment. The story follows the protagonist, Rodin Raskolnikov, who believes that he is an extraordinary man where
He believes that if he kills the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, he will be able to save the people around who are constantly in her debt. Those people are more important than the life of a, “stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman” (65). With utilitarian concepts put in mind he concludes that it is only right to, “kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all” (67). This justification is also validated by an officer and a student Raskolnikov overheard in the tavern. Dostoevsky purposely sets up Alyona as being widely hated so that she would not be missed. The men and women who believe in this philosophy such a Raskolnikov believe that they are able to make decisions between life and death according to the impact it will have on the greater good. These people are not able to handle the implications of their own
This speech should have made Raskolnikov reflect and question his self-identity on whether he is ordinary or extraordinary, but he says this speech like he is reciting a monologue as if someone is talking through him. During the speech as Raskolnikov, “said these words and during the whole preceding tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the carpet.” (245) He looks at the ground and is scared of the implications of this theory for his own life. Raskolnikov also ignores the fact that he is acting out of sickness because he has not come to turns with the nature of the crime. He describes ordinary men pretending to be extraordinary as “never (going) very far. They might have a thrashing sometimes for letting their fancy run away with them and to teach them their place, but no more; in fact, even this isn’t necessary as they castigate themselves, for they are very conscientious: some perform this service for one another and chastise themselves with their own hands” (245). Because this speech is so symbolic this is the reason that Porfiry chooses to bring it up, Raskolnikov has a hard time not applying his utilitarianism theories to his actions. Unlike extraordinary men, Raskolnikov has no “new” word to bring to the world and thus that makes his crime