Moral Relativism in Fyodor Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment :: Crime and Punishment Essays

Moral Relativism in Crime and punishment At the close of Crime and Punishment, Raskolinkov is convicted of Murder and sentenced to seven years in Siberian prison. Yet even before the character was conceived, Fyodor Dostoevsky had already convicted Raskolinkov in his mind (Frank, Dostoevsky 101). Crime and Punishment is the final chapter in Dostoevskys journey toward understanding the forces that mount man to sin, suffering, and grace. Using ideas developed in nones from Underground and episodes of his life recorded in Memoirs of the House of the Dead, Dostoevsky puts forth in Crime in Punishment a stern defense of natural law and an irrefutable volume of evidence condemning Raskolnikovs actions (Bloom, Notes 25). Central to the prosecution of any crime, murder in particular, is the idea of motive. Not only must the prosecutor prove the actus rectus or guilty act, but also that the criminal possessed the mens rea or guilty mind (Schmalleger 77). The pages of Crime and Punishment an d the philosophies of Dostoevsky provide ample proof of both. The first is easy Dostoevsky forces the reader to watch firsthand as Raskolnikov took the axe all the way out, swung it with both hands, scarcely certain of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the butt-end down on her head (Crime and Punishment 76). There is no doubt Raskolnikov caused the death of Alena Ivanovna and, later, Lizaveta, but whether he possessed the mens rea is another takings entirely. By emphasizing the depersonalization Raskolnikov experiences during the murder, the fact that he was scarcely aware of himself and acted almost mechanically the sympathetic reader might conclude that some mystical force of nature, and not the person Raskolnikov, is to blame for the death of the usurer and her sister (Nutall 160). Dostoevskys answer to this is contained not in Crime and Punishment, but rather in an preliminary work, Notes from Underground. The entire story of the Underground M an was intended to parody the works of Nicolai G. Chernyshevsky, and thereby prove that mans actions are the result of his own free-will. The idea that man is altogether responsible for his actions is central to proving that Raskolnikov is really to blame for his crime. For under the Chernyshevsky-embraced doctrine of scientific determinism, Raskolnikov cannot be held accountable for his actions. Rather, scientific determinism holds that whatever actions men take are undeniable and unalterable because they are totally determined by the laws of nature.