In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky's main character kills an old woman that lives alone in an apartment. The old woman is said to be an unpleasant, scheming, petty and malicious person. Her life causes no happiness to those around her or to herself. After the murder, the man then steals a large amount of money that she keeps hidden in the apartment. He plans to use it to advance his education. The money that would have been found after her death would have otherwise ended up in the hands of chisellers. This paper will illustrate that the actions of the murderer were justified because the old woman's life served no purpose.
The old woman in the story is well known for her unpleasant character. She lives a life of independence and solitude and treats everyone with disdain. It is therefore expected that she is not loved or appreciated by society. No one bears any positive sentiments towards her. The murderer probably hears of the woman from other residents of the apartment block. He builds similar feelings of resentment towards her because that is what society has decided. He then uses this as motivation to get into her apartment and make away with whatever he can. This can be supported by the results of a cheating experiment that was carried out by Dan Ariel who is a behavioral economist. In his cheating experiment, he found that alot of people cheat a little. It is therefore possible that alot of people thought of or imagined all the wealth that the old woman had. This was probably the first step that motivated the murderer to carry out his crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The murderer may also have been motivated to steal because it was unlikely that he would get caught. He knew that the society in general knew about the old lady. It was clear that everyone would be a suspect and no one had a reason to point at him in particular. This is exactly similar to Ariel's experiment where the respondents who were instructed to tear up their test results cheated more. Human beings can do just about anything if they think they are unlikely to get caught. Additionally, the experiment showed that people will cheat irregardless of the certainty of economic gain. In this case, the murderer took a chance at breaking into the house although the story of wealth could have been false. He felt that it was worth taking a chance on this.
The man must have also factored in the opportunities he could get from the money. This can be supported by Ariel's assertions that people often follow their intuition whether it is right or wrong. The murderer placed his need for an eduction above the risk of punishment from law enforcement agencies. He even risked his future as an academic so that he could get the finances he needed to build the same future. This is similar to the nurses who assumed that their methods of treatment were less painful than other types of treatment. The behaviour of the murderer may also have been justified by the old woman's attitude towards her community.
John Kraus in the video clip on ethical leadership describes the role that communication plays in decision making. Individuals are more likely to practice ethical behaviour because of the community approval. If a majority of the citizens identified with good behaviour and ethical means of getting money, then it would have been unlikely to take such a decision. The highest probability was that the community they lived in was filled with a high crime rate. This made stealing and murder a justifiable act and means of earning money for the criminal. He must have observed other people who profited from the proceeds of crime. This can be supported by Paul Hennegan's statement that trust influences decision making. The reason why many people fall into ponsey schemes is because the corporations make the schemes look attractive. Everyone wants to make money so they move towards the newest money maker.
The thief had a similar motivation because he had even thought out the alternatives. He was convinced that his life would change for the better after the robbery. He must also have identified more with the crime doers than with the law abiding citizens. His conversations with similar peers provided a conviction on why his actions were justified. To him, the end justified the means. He probably did not have a clear moral code that guided his behaviour. He did what was right for him at the time. It could be assumed that the man may have been exposed to some ethical teachings in his past. However, the code may have been theoretical and not practical like in the case of most companies codes of ethics. Kraus reiterates that most people keep their code of ethics as a theoretical and not actual way of life.
Finally, it can be said that the murderer was justified in acting like he did because of indidualistic instint. The society set around the cast of Crime and Punishment may have been a law abiding and peace loving community. The man who killed the old woman may have flaunted the code of conduct that was put in place by society. He instead decided to act out his own personal identity because it gave him an advantage that he lacked before. He must have reasoned that his actions would not be widespread because the old lady was not loved by anyone. She would not be missed and neither would the loss of her money affect any dependents.
References
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9K9pNxljjg
