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 formulates a theory that extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime, including murder, as long as it is for the good for the society. Utilitarianism can make an ordinary man believe that he is extraordinary and the act of murder can be justified just like simple mathematics. Because Raskolnikov accepts these ideas, he is under the presumption of utilitarian responsibility. Through Raskolnikov’s essay of his superman theory and the use of ‘extraordinary’, Dostoevsky shows his feelings towards the idea of utilitarianism.

Rodin Raskolnikov only acts under the idea of utilitarian precepts and he only believes that he is doing good for humanity by committing the crime of murdering the pawnbroker.
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
morality.

In Raskolnikov’s speech to Porfiry Petrovich (the man investigating the murder), defines what it is to be extraordinary and he justifies the actions of extraordinary men, an idea that can be linked to Dostoevsky.
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
ordinary. Utilitarianism cannot bring about extraordinary men. The argument Dostoevsky sets for the justification is that, “all great men or even men a little out of common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals more or less, of course” (242). The descriptions of the extraordinary man in this speech are Dostoevsky’s, it builds the foundation for criticizing utilitarian characters who act out of their ordinary role.

Dostoevsky criticizes utilitarians who believe that they are extraordinary, but by using that word they themselves become ordinary. Dreams are described as “having "a singular actuality, vividness and extraordinary semblance of reality” (52). Later in the book extraordinary is used to describe a random coincidence of an impression: “of course it was a chance, but he could not shake off a very extraordinary impression” (??) Furthermore, it is used in correlation with drowsiness, his “drowsiness and stupefaction were followed by an extraordinary, feverish, as it was distracted haste” (66). Then, referring to Raskonikov’s state his face was “suddenly transformed and in one flash recalled with extraordinary vividness of sensation in a moment in the recent past” (?) Over and over again, each instance of the word extraordinary describes an abnormal situation almost equal to delirium. In the speech to Porfiry this word is out of place in context so it is apparent that Dostoevsky uses it in a way to hint at someone who is extraordinary is absurd. By using extraordinary in this way, he shows the reader of the dangers of utilitarianism but also shows why they believe they are above the average man. Dostoevsky expresses this belief as delirium, as they are actually just mad, sick, and drunk. During this time period many of these men who had these beliefs were regarded as untidy, unruly ragged men who rebelled against tradition and social order. It explains the persistence in the way in which extraordinary was used. If one did not put themselves in the state that caused them to act out and acted within boundaries of their personality, extraordinary would not be seen.

Dostoevsky believes that being extraordinary is not something that an extraordinary man can wonder about because they do not actually know. He treats utilitarianism as a sort of poison that can make an ordinary man delirious, sick and mad. He cannot know if he is extraordinary because, “the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them. The first category is always the man of the present, the second man of the future” (243); The man of the present being ordinary, and the future extraordinary. Raskolnikov admits that his essay is nothing new; he is not creating anything but just reinforcing ancient thoughts and philosophies relating to men and women who are extraordinary. Utilitarianism is therefore also nothing new but just a morality based on an established math and science. In imitation of Napoleon, Raskolnikov knew that he needed to commit the murder for the greater cause, but in reality he did not have a ‘greater cause’ which makes him ordinary. Ironically, he is only described as extraordinary when he is sick or delirious. Raskolnikov cannot know the difference in if he is extraordinary or ordinary the same way that utilitarians do not have a math formula that decides life and death. Only the future is able to judge the actions of an extraordinary man, as so the “masses set criminals on a pedestal in the next generation” (243). Because of the use of extraordinary and the essay, Dostoevsky expresses his feelings subtly as he shows Raskolnikov is just ordinary and that it is from a sickness.