To explain the main character's actions in Dostoyevsky's novel, 'Crime and Punishment' would require a vast application of law, philosophy, and morality. Taking a legal angle would leave little room for inciteful debate as the law is evident on what actions amount to a crime and their punishments. As such, this paper invalidates the killer's actions in the murder of the old woman and theft of the money in her house. It will apply the utilitarian theory to disprove any justification of such heinous acts. It will also refute the morality of murder and theft. It will finally apply the concept of inequality to explain how the class gap justifies the poor's criminal acts.
The Utilitarian Theory
The perpetrator attempts to use the utilitarian theory to justify his actions. As such, this essay uses the same theory to refute his justifications. In his article, Michael Pollan, 'An Animal's Place,' criticizes Singer's work as a utilitarian (Pollan, 2002). This theory differentiates right from wrong depending on whether such acts are beneficial and useful to society. It, therefore, promotes actions that bring more benefits than harm to humanity. The beneficial value of an action is directly associated with happiness. The theory attaches so much value to happiness. Therefore, if an action causes happiness to the greatest number of people, it is right. On the other hand, if an action causes harm to the greatest number of people, it is wrong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The main character in the novel argues that the old woman is useless to herself and society. Her usefulness, according to utilitarianism, depends on how much happiness she causes to herself and others. The main character opines that she does not cause anyone happiness. It would seem as if she deserves to die since her life is described as useless. However, her murder does not cause happiness to the greatest number of people. Indeed, her murder is only beneficial to her killer.
It could also be argued that the motive behind stealing her money justifies his actions. Besides, the utilitarian theory argues for actions that are beneficial to society. In some sense, the fact that he steals to advance his education at Brandman university legitimizes his actions. However, for the utilitarian theory to justify his actions, they need to benefit the greatest number of people. However, the main character in Dostoyevsky's novel steals only to benefit and secure his own interests.
Morality
Morality encompasses all principles that distinguish right from wrong. Human beings are intrinsically moral. It means that they are inclined to do what is right. The few that do wrong always act against their human nature. It is not to mean that human beings do not do wrong at all. Pollan (2002) agrees that some people are better than others, even smarter. Nonetheless, being better or more intelligent does not entitle a person to use another to further their own interests (Pollan, 2002). It is, therefore, immaterial that the stolen money was going to be put to good use. It is also irrelevant that the old woman was malicious, petty, and useless to society. Dostoyevsky's character was not entitled to use the old woman to further his own interests.
Mark Twain, in his article ‘Advice to Youth,' instructs the youth to be respectful to their superiors. He does not attach conditions to justify the respect to be accorded to superiors. The novel's character, therefore, ought to have respected the old woman unconditionally. It means that the old woman's life and property deserved to be respected regardless of her unlikeable character and lifestyle. Twain further advises against violence by stating that "the time has gone for such things" (Twain, 2018). Hence, the old woman's killer is "low and unrefined" as Twain describes violent people (Twain, 2018).
In 'An Animal's Place,' it is argued that suffering is a valid problem, but the world is full of problems. Similarly, the woman's killer's concerns are not invalid. She is malicious, petty, scheming, and useless to society. She brings no happiness to herself or society. Pollan asserts that these problems are part of the world. Although the killer's concerns are well-grounded, they do not justify his inhumane actions.
Inequality
' An Animal's Place' argues that equality is a moral idea and not a factual notion. He argues that some people are better than others (Pollan, 2002). This introduces class inequality. The old woman's killer seemed to be bothered by the fact that she had a considerable amount of money, yet he wanted to advance his education. It begs the question of whether the rich have an obligation to give to the needy. Singer argues that the rich have no obligation to the poor (Singer, 2006). It is because they have worked hard to earn their wealth. The old woman, therefore, had no obligation to share her wealth with her killer. Additionally, given that the money was not his, the killer was not in a position to decide how the woman's money was to be spent.
Conclusion
The essay has discredited the validity of Dostoyevsky's character's action. It has been argued that the utilitarian theory validates actions only when they cause happiness to most people. It has established that the killer's actions were not beneficial to anyone but himself. The paper has also argued that the killer's actions are against morality. As such, they cannot be justified. It has finally asserted that class inequality is not a reasonable cause for stealing the old woman's money. Therefore, even with the assumption that murder and theft are not crimes, they still cannot be validated.
References
Twain, M. (2018). Advice to youth . Audio Sommelier.
Pollan, M. (2002). An animal's place (Published 2002). The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html
Singer, P. (2006). What should a billionaire give – and what should you? (Published 2006). The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html
