To go wrong in your own way is better than to go right in someone else’s – Fyodor Dostoevsky

There exists a selection of timeless literary masterpieces that will forever be celebrated as the "Greatest Books of All-Time," and among them, Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment undoubtedly claims its place.

If you haven't come across the title before, you would likely recognize its name at least. Countless summaries of the book have been written, many of which surpass any attempt I could make to do justice to its content.

Instead, my intention is to extract the primary psychological lessons that Dostoevsky seeks to convey based on my understanding.

In his typical fashion, Dostoevsky presents several intricate ideas, although I will primarily focus on two key concepts.

The first idea revolves around the question: Can all crimes be justified? Secondly, I will explore the notion: Is morality merely an illusion?
‍

Let's begin with the first concept: Can all crimes be justified?

Surprisingly, this aspect has not been extensively discussed concerning the book. However, I believe it to be a prominent theme. Throughout the initial stages of the story, the main character, Raskolnikov, describes his encounters with an old woman, a pawn-broker to whom he owes a debt.

He portrays her as a tormentor of the impoverished, responsible for enslaving her sister, and as a source of negativity for all those connected to her. From all accounts, it seems that the world would be better off without her. Additionally, her actions have far-reaching consequences, inflicting even greater suffering on those affected. Another crucial aspect to note is that Raskolnikov's sister is being coerced into an unwanted engagement due to his debt.

Essentially, Dostoevsky poses a version of the trolley problem. Pulling one lever would result in the death of only one person (the old woman), while pulling the other would cause multiple deaths (those affected by the old woman). Logically, it seems reasonable to allow the one person to die. Although I won't delve into the fallacy of the trolley problem in this post, the moral quandary of justifying murder becomes intriguing.

Allow me to provide a well-known example that many are familiar with: Thanos.

Thanos believes that eliminating half of the world's population would cleanse and preserve it. He argues that humanity is on the wrong path and that reducing the population, albeit not entirely, would alleviate the strain on the planet's resources.

At first glance, this proposition may seem absurd. However, what if an instantaneous reduction in population could save humanity from extinction? Would it be a worthwhile sacrifice? Some would still argue against it, but I believe many could be persuaded (provided they are not among those who would perish) to make such sacrifices for the long-term preservation of humanity.

Dostoevsky explores this very idea. The old woman is undeniably the cause of further suffering and potentially more deaths due to her existence. Would it not be justified to put an end to it all now?

By following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, one could potentially justify almost any crime committed, albeit within reasonable limits.

This brings to mind the story of Robin Hood. It also calls to attention countless action movies, particularly John Wick.

Consider John Wick's actions. Were they justified? He killed hundreds of people, many of whom had families, friends, and loved ones. Can John Wick truly be considered the hero? Answering this question is challenging, but some would argue in the affirmative.
‍

Now, let us shift our focus to the second point: Is morality just an illusion?

One of the most captivating ideas I have encountered is not only presented by Dostoevsky but also by the likes of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Aldous Huxley. This notion suggests that "good people" are not inherently good due to their virtuous character, but rather because they fear the consequences that would arise if they acted upon their true desires.

A prime example can be found in the movie The Purge. The film captivated numerous individuals due to its portrayal of truth. Remove the consequences of misbehavior, and people tend to abandon their previously held moral values.

Consequently, individuals often lose their ability to adhere to their previous moral values. Violence and destruction are typically the first moral principles to erode, as depicted in the aforementioned image.

This prompts the question: Is morality merely an illusion? To shed light on this inquiry, allow me to present an example.

If someone lies to you, and you wholeheartedly believe that lie, does it become the truth? Instinctively, you might argue that it does not. However, the answer is not as straightforward as it seems. If you genuinely believe someone's lie without any doubt or hesitation, then according to your own perception, it becomes true.

Only when the falsehood crumbles and the real truth is revealed do you realize that you have been deceived. But what if you never discover the truth? Does living your entire life based on a lie make it the truth?

Consider an adopted child who firmly believes that their adoptive parents are their biological parents. Does this make it any less true, at least in the child's mind? I don't think so. If you genuinely and unwaveringly believe something to be true, it becomes your truth, at least on a functional level. Of course, this susceptibility can be easily exploited, but I won't delve into that in this post.

Instead, let us return to the question of morality and explore two separate ideas within this context.

The first question to consider is whether there is such a thing as a universal set of morals. In other words, do true "Ten Commandments" exist? Or is morality entirely subjective?

As much as I desire to affirm the first question, I find an increasing number of examples that support the second question. Morality is constantly subject to scrutiny and can be entirely contradicted, often justifiably so.

The second question that arises is this: If morality can be so easily contradicted, is it nothing more than an illusion? Do we adhere to society's definition of "morality" while secretly yearning to satisfy our own needs and desires under the right circumstances?

Dostoevsky frequently addresses this topic in his works, but I believe Friedrich Nietzsche best encapsulates it through his concept of Slave Morality.

Slave morality does not seek to assert one's will through strength but rather through subtle subversion. Its aim is not to surpass the masters but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality lies in its utility.

In simpler terms, people do not adhere to society's moral code because they genuinely wish to do so. They conform to this false morality due to the utility it provides and the fear of consequences should they act upon their true desires. Movies such as The Purge and the actions witnessed during the summer riots of 2020 exemplify this concept.

To conclude, while Crime and Punishment delves into numerous philosophical questions, I believe these to be the most crucial queries that demand exploration.

‍

Reasons to read it:

• If you are an enthusiast of philosophy and wish to delve into the psychological turmoil experienced by Raskolnikov as he wrestles with his thoughts before and after the murder, then yes, this is an enthralling book.

‍

Reasons to skip it:

• However, if you seek more straightforward ideas that leave less room for interpretation, then this might not be the ideal book for you.