“Kill her, take her money and with the help of it, dedicate yourself to the service of humanity and the good of all. Wouldn't a small crime be erased by thousands of good deeds? One death and a hundred lives in exchange. (Dostoyevsky, 69 years old)Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Right on cue, Raskolnikov stumbles into a “miserable little tavern” and overhears these strangely fateful words between a student and an officer. The student goes on to assert that it is the role of a privileged few – extraordinary people – to “correct and direct nature” in cases where it would benefit the whole; Yet when a friend challenges him, he quickly and weakly remarks that he is only "pleading for justice" and could never commit such a dastardly act - thus demoting himself to the rank of lesser ordinary people. But indirectly, the student unknowingly instigated this act that he supports only in theory, by nurturing and defending the same idea that had grown within Raskolnikov's eavesdropping. Indeed, the fatal timing of this meeting further convinces Raskolnikov that it is a "guiding clue" of an "inevitable pre-ordering", which reinforces his emerging conviction that he is one of the rare people extraordinary persons authorized to violate moral codes in certain cases. extreme cases. It is later revealed that this climactic conversation he overhears in the tavern echoes in exactly parallel ways the radical theses of Raskolnikov's utilitarian article "On Crime." The identical propositions and arguments from the conversation to Raskolnikov's thoughts and writings are too coincidental to be dismissed as mere chance, and they may even indicate a certain schizophrenic psychosis in Raskolnikov, whereby the conversation in the bar actually occurred in his head. While this suggests a far more serious mental illness than is ever explicitly attributed to Raskolnikov, it is not an entirely unnoticeable speculation – and it becomes even more plausible after Svidrigailov's shocking account of Raskolnikov's behavior in public: “You look and you obviously don’t see anything in front of you or next to you. Finally, you start moving your lips and talking to each other, and sometimes you wave your hand and declaim at the last stop, standing still in the middle of the road. (Dostoyevsky, 462) This new point of view presents a detached depiction of Raskolnikov's condition, devoid of the influence of Raskolnikov – who exposes him – and reveals a more recognizable manifestation of madness than he ever alludes to in his story. While his illness was previously limited to convulsions and paranoia, here we have a crucial piece of evidence that jeopardizes the last shreds of credibility that Raskolnikov clings to in defense of his rationality and sanity – which , in fact, endangers Raskolnikov's rationality. his theories. Yet while notions of destiny and narrative reliability are critical and fascinating motifs in this excerpt and in the novel as a whole, the most important thing that can be extracted from this conversation in the tavern is the reiteration and the combination of utilitarianism as the main theme of the novel – as a theme to be wrestled with and engaged in dialogue with until it is considered from all angles. Indeed, ultimately, the dialogic mode of Crime and Punishment serves Dostoyevsky as a means of reinforcing and reconsidering his own personal convictions; and leaving some of these key beliefs standing at theend of the novel, while letting others fall apart, he indicates that his beliefs are firmly rooted, examined, and supported. Throughout Raskolnikov's first conversation with Porfiry, it is hard not to buy into Raskolnikov's utilitarian theory which grants extraordinary men "the inner right to decide in their own conscience to overcome certain obstacles, [when that] benefits the entire community” (260).” He continues to convincingly defend his article by speaking in elaborate terms about the improvement of society, while glorifying those who have the courage to stand for change; saying things such as: “[the extraordinary] seeks in various ways the destruction of the present in the name of the better (261). " In perhaps the most critical defense of his position, Raskolnikov enters into a lecture on the importance and privileges accorded to such extraordinary men: "The rulers of men such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mohammed, Napoleon, etc. ., were all criminals without exception… They did not stop at bloodshed, if this bloodshed was useful to their cause. It is indeed remarkable that the majority of these leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. I maintain that all great men must, by their very nature, be criminals...otherwise it is difficult for them to escape from the common rut; and remaining in the common rut is what they cannot submit to” (Dostoevsky, 260). Not only does Raskolnikov present a compelling case for utilitarianism in this defense of his dissertation, but he also, by dividing society into two categories, provokes the public into active reflection and participation in his theory. It is after all impossible, as a reader, not to consider oneself a member of the extraordinary, after propaganda such as: "People who have new ideas, people who have the slightest ability to say something again, are extremely few, extraordinarily numerous. "How can one submit, after such inspiring persuasion, to an ordinary class of people, a people who "are conservative in temperament, [who] live under control and like to be controlled (261)? By presenting arguments also attractive to the extraordinary class of people, and by supplementing his defense of murder with historically supported and logically justified arguments in favor of the "sanction of bloodshed by conscience", Dostoyevsky creates a very strong argument in favor of 'a utilitarian motto: “the greatest good for the greatest number And he builds it, exploits it – in theory – from all angles, and finally puts it into practice. Then he drops it. , although predictable, is very complex and important Indeed, the reasons for the failure of Raskolnikov's utilitarian experiment allow Dostoyevsky to explore and ultimately conclude that the flaws in his theory do not outweigh his. benefits ; he therefore finally affirms that it is never justifiable to kill, even in extreme cases. Although Raskolnikov presents convincing arguments for his theory both in his article and in his defense of his article before Porfiry, it does not stand the test of practice. Ultimately, Raskolnikov concedes that the experiment failed in his case because he was not granted the right to kill: "the devil trained me and he has since shown me that I had not the right to follow this path (414)”. He goes on to say: “Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her! I crashed once and for all, forever (414)…” The brutal toll the murder takes on his conscience indicates that Raskolnikov understands that his theory must remain a theory – that heThis is not an attempt. " did for his utilitarian theory, when in the first epilogue Raskolnikov laments: "But these men succeeded and therefore they were right, and I was not, and therefore I had no right to take this step. " At this point, it seems that Dostoyevsky decided that the theory should be examined on a case-by-case basis (rather than making a general statement for or against utilitarianism), leaving Raskolnikov unrepentant. But this turns out to be just a facade, as the wheels were already beginning to fall off when Raskolnikov considered the idea of ​​fleeing his punishment instead of becoming a martyr for his cause; Porfiry notes: “You have already stopped believing in your theory, what are you going to run away with? » On this point, Raskolnikov cannot even find an answer; he turns to leave the conversation – corrected and ashamed. And finally, in the last pages of the novel, Dostoyevsky reaffirms his neutrality towards Raskolnikov's theory, making him open his eyes, repent of his crime and submit to punishment. It is crucial that Dostoevsky includes Raskolnikov's repentance at the end of the second epilogue, because in doing so he manages to silence the last voice standing in favor of his theory, effectively killing it. condemning utilitarian "humanitarianism", to reinforce what he believes to be the main influence of Raskolnikov's murder. Namely the implicit influence of the environment on behavior. The reader is constantly reminded of the “closet” of a room in which Raskolnikov lives, in a sinister and gloomy setting of St. Petersburg. However, Dostoevsky makes sure to drive the point home by including many less subtle allusions to the influence of the environment in the dialogue. Svidrigailov, for example, mentions at one point: “It’s a crazy city. There are few places where there are so many dark, strong and strange influences on a man's soul as in Petersburg. The simple influences of climate are of great importance. Along the same lines, Porfiry says that "Petersburg had a great effect on him" in reference to the pawnbroker's murderer. Yet the most direct statement regarding the influence of the environment on criminal behavior – and one that resonates closely with Dostoyevsky's own beliefs before he was sent to Siberia – is the socialist doctrine raised in a discussion between Porfiry, Raskolnikov and Razumihin: “Everything about them is 'the influence of the environment', and nothing else. Their favorite phrase! From which it follows that, if society is normally organized, all crime will cease at once, since there will be nothing to protest against and all men will become righteous in an instant. of the environment on behavior, and although some parts are considered purely hypothetical (i.e. the perfectly organized society), the root of the problem remains: the influence of the environment on behavior is powerful and inevitable. Finally, during his trial, Raskolnikov stated that the cause of his crime was "his miserable situation, his poverty and his helplessness (528)." In case the reader missed all the other signs, Dostoyevsky makes things as simple as possible. By including this theme so directly and so often, Dostoyevsky makes it clear that poverty, social circumstances, and the environment all seriously contribute to criminal behavior, although he carefully asserts that they do not justify crime, by making people arrest and punish Raskolnikov at the end. of the novel. It is perhaps one of the most fascinating and impressive aspects of Crime and Punishment that Fyodor Dostoyevsky goes so far to offer the benefits of perspectives and theories with which he disagrees. in real life. He does so on the theme of religion – asking..