Utilitarianism In Crime And Punishment

How to Get Away With Murder
Morality and the concept of morals define each individual. Morality is doing what “good” or what is just, and refers to the code of conduct that governs those who wish to behave according to that code (Stanford, 2014). By all those who believe in the existence of morality, the values and ethics set forth must not be overridden for fear of both corporeal and mental punishment. Such responsibilities tie friends together and split enemies. Moral obligations can even be taken to the extreme of ending another’s life for the common welfare of a society.
In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, the protagonist, bears a moral rationale that leads him to murder Alyona Ivanovna, a harsh pawbroker. Through analytical
narration and dialogue, Dostoevsky determines that murder can be justified, regardless of the action being “right”. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, justify is defined as “to prove something to be reasonable”. Within Crime and Punishment, the author establishes that, through utilitarian and nihilist values, the death of Alyona Ivanovna was not only benefit to society, but a morally permissible action.
In the Service of Humanity
Utilitarianism is one many mechanisms used to justify the double murders in Crime and Punishment.
Utilitarianism, in its most basic form, upholds actions resulting in ends that allow for greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and ensures that pleasure is maximized and pain is minimized. Sovereign forces of pleasure and pain drive one’s everyday actions and justify said actions (Bentham, 1789). Raskolnikov's methodical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to him exemplifies an intrinsic understanding of utilitarianism. Raskolnikov employs the fundamentals of utilitarianism by weighing the pain of the murder against the pleasure maximized by her absence, thus attesting to the justifiability of the
murder.
Promoting the common good, societal welfare and the argument that one would be maximizing lives by killing Alyona Ivanovna in the novel is an idea promoted by a student and adopted by Raskolnikov. The nameless student is talking to an officer when Raskolnikov happens upon the conversation. The harsh utilitarian concepts and ideas that resonate within the statements uttered interest Raskolnikov and confirm the thoughts he has been having all along. “…We have a stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing old woman and not simply useless but doing actual harm, who herself has no idea what she is living for, and who will die in a day or two in any case” (Dostoevsky, 65). According to utilitarian values, the old pawnbroker’s existence functions as a gateway for harm. In addition, the young student claims Alyona Ivanovna’s life has no further intrinsic value, believes that the pain caused far outweighs any good. “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote yourself to the service of humanity and the common good. What do you think; would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” (Dostoevsky, 66). Raskolnikov remains in a state of shock after hearing such words, but upon mulling over similar ideas himself, decides that he must kill the pawnbroker, and that the world would be better off without her. The student believes that the killing of Alyona Ivanovna is morally permissible, and could also serve as a starting point for further “charitable” actions. Determining that allowing the deaths of some to save others does not explicitly entail that those who are killed serve the sole purpose of being used as means to achieve an end, the murder can be justified accordingly in a much more humane fashion (Bentham, 1789). With this in mind, Raskolnikov successfully commits the murder, and emphasizes the utilitarian benefits actions. Even after an expansive period of time, he justifies his actions, claiming they are right and reasonable. “I’ve only killed a louse, Sonia, a useless, loathsome, harmful creature” (Dostoevsky, 395). Raskolnikov maintains the same utilitarian values that provoked him to kill the old woman in the first place even after the murder takes place. Referring to Alyona Ivanovna as a “harmful creature” further exemplifies that Raskolnikov warranted his action. He has decided that to allow more deaths when we can ensure less is completely immoral and even relinquishing the good intention of trying to save lives. In addition, everyone has a moral obligation to help out humanity and promote utilitarian tenants. Without life, no other value can be achieved because maximizing life remains a prerequisite to any other value (Rakowski, 1991).
Dostoevsky successfully persuades the reader that the existence of the pawnbroker would result in diminished societal welfare and therefore an increase in pain. In accordance with the ideology of the student, Raskolnikov decides that he ought to take an action that would benefit society. Through the medium of utilitarianism, the murder is becomes justifiable.
“Negating More”

Known for its harsh skepticism and radical ideology, nihilism remains one of the most ambiguous philosophies, and is used by Dostoevsky to allude to a justification for murder. Specifically, moral nihilism is used frequently in Crime and Punishment. Moral nihilism is the view that morality does not exist in an objective form; therefore no action can necessarily be preferred over any other (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005). In the case of Raskolnikov, moral nihilism dictates that neither killing nor sparing Alyona Ivanovna is preferable. Hence, the non-existence of morals allows for the validation of the murder (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013). Raskolnikov and his actions collectively display a rejection of morals and high skepticism, ultimately giving Raskolnikov a nihilist view of life.
“Curse it all!’ he thought suddenly in a fit of uncontrollable fury. ‘Damn the new life!” (Dostoevsky, 108). Both before and after committing the murders, Raskolnikov becomes overwhelmed with hatred and pessimism that result in a nihilist existence. Because of such affirmation of ideals, one could suggest that nihilism could have played a role in the murder, and therefore can justify such an act. Firstly, one would find it difficult to prove nihilism does not advocate for the justification of the murders due to the inability to state the intrinsic good or evil an action. Secondly, over the duration of the novel, Raskolnikov persists on unsentimental and apathetical behavior, another reason Raskolnikov is nihilist. Because of his inability to see the pain of others, Raskolnikov commits the murder, believing that which would put him in the best light. Therefore, nihilism warrants the killing of Alyona
Ivanovna. The Relativism of Justice
Dostoevsky employs a vast arsenal of philosophical ponderings to gain acceptance that Raskolnikov possesses the ability to justify the murder of the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna. Within Crime and Punishment, utilitarian and nihilistic values reign and dictate the actions of the protagonist and warrant those actions. The idea of what makes an action just set forth by Raskolnikov remains valid in the novel.