The Raskolnikov In Us

“Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.”

—Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

In the United States, the rights of the individual take precedence over the interests of the masses. In socialism the individual is sacrificed for the benefit of the group. What’s better for the masses comes first at the risk of the individual’s rights. In Russia of the 1860s there were radical groups that espoused utilitarian-altruism—doing practical things for the common good. Author Fyodor Dostoevsky saw this as dangerous thinking that when taken to the extreme would result in a menace to society. In response, he conceived a novella written with the anti-hero protagonist Rodion Raskolnikov, a destitute former law student with ideas of murder. Raskolnikov devised a plan where he would kill a miserable old pawnbroker, steal her money, and with these riches rise out of poverty and do great things for mankind. The murder of the old pawnbroker was a necessary step to the greater benefit of the masses, or as Dostoevsky saw it, utilitarian-altruism taken to the extreme, as he feared.

After careful planning, Raskolnikov follows through with the murder which did not go to plan since Raskolnikov must also kill the pawnbroker’s handicapped sister Lizaveta when she walks in on the scene, and he is seen by a painter in the hallway during his escape. Afterwards, Raskolnikov is unexpectedly racked with guilt and remorse. He confesses his deed to the prostitute Sonya who has become his friend and confidant. Her name Sofya in Greek means wisdom and she is there to support Raskolnikov despite the fact that Lizaveta was her friend. Detective Porfiry Petrovich, assigned to the case to find the murderer, uses psychological means to extract a confession from Raskolnikov. When Raskolnikov is sentenced to Siberia in the Epilogue, Sonya has joined him and Raskolnikov has found piece of mind and the novel has a surprisingly hopeful ending. I found the ending to be a breath of fresh air at the finish of a suffocating book. It made me happy for Raskolnikov and for Sonya, the two scarred and suffering actors in a gray and miserable story. I put the book down with a smile. Something I did not expect.

Dostoevsky initially conceived a first person novella. When he saw the material he had he changed his mind and developed a third person work to be serialized in the literary journal The Russian Messenger in twelve parts from January to December of 1866. The complete novel was published in 1867.

Raskolnikov had delusions of grandeur and was mentally ill, but he did know right from wrong. He knew killing the old pawnbroker and her sister was wrong, this is demonstrated by his unrelenting conscience. People with grandiose delusions believe they have exceptional power or a special identity. Grandiose delusions affect about half the people with schizophrenia and two-thirds of bi-polar patients. People with delusions of grandeur may also experience hallucinations like the dream Raskolnikov has when he falls asleep in the bushes.

They can think they are famous, can end wars, are wealthy, are religious leaders (think David Koresh of the Branch Davidians) and have special talents. Raskolnikov certainly fits into this phenomena. He feels that he can offer great things to the world despite being an ex-law student in St. Petersburg. Grandiose delusions are more than just a mental illness, they mark a significant disconnect from the real world. Living in the slums among the poor and decadent of St. Petersburg, Raskolnikov keeps to himself with the exception of talking to Sonya’s father in a bar. Sonya’s father, Semyon Marmeladov, confesses to Raskolnikov how his alcoholism has ruined his marriage and his family and forced Sonya into prostitution. This story moves Raskolnikov at the same time he is considering his plan to murder the old pawnbroker.

The question whether or not the sacrifice of an individual is morally acceptable for the greater good has been approached by many people. As I stated above, my living in a country where every life is considered valuable, this philosophy would not hold water. In Nazi Germany the idea that murdering Jews, Gypsys. homosexuals, and the handicapped in order to improve racial purity and for the greater good of the country was at one time accepted by many people but has since been completely rejected by all decent ethical society.

Whether it’s religious sects like Shia and Sunni or tribal groups like the Hutus and Tutsis, or Israel and Hamas, murder of innocent individuals for the greater good is considered acceptable. What would Dostoevsky think of the 45,000 Gazans that have died in the current war, many of them woman and children? Could he even conceive of the famine and poverty being inflicted on two million people in Gaza? Or the travesty of October 7 by Hamas on the Israeli civilians? Dostoevsky knew poverty and hunger. He knew the suffering caused by wars, but not on the scale that they are waged today. If ten people could be sacrificed to stop a war would you choose to do that? Ten innocent people. Ten children even. To end catastrophic suffering. Where is the Raskolnikov in us? The utilitarian-altruist? Most would reject this scenario, despite the temptation. But there are people in this world who would readily take advantage of this offer. Most of these people would have delusions of grandeur and be utilitarian-altruists. Perhaps, Dostoevsky was correct when he said this philosophy was dangerous to the world and Crime and Punishment serves as a stark warning to this way of thinking.

Up next: A review of the exciting new horror/thriller Pierce the Veil by David Simms