It was after facing his own execution on December 22, 1849 that the Russian novelist, Feodor Dostoevsky started writing many of his best works. On that morning in 1849 he marched out with nineteen other political prisoners to face a firing squad in Semenovsky Square, St Petersburg. The first group of men was blindfolded and tied to posts; the second, which included Dostoevsky, was then moved forward. At the last moment, with the firing squad taking aim, an officer rode forward with a white flag and announced that the death sentences had been commuted to imprisonment in Siberia. Dostoevsky (1821- 81) had been sentenced to death for allegedly plotting against the Tsar and for setting up a secret printing press for socialist propaganda. He consequently served four years hard labour in a camp at Omsk and after his release wrote about his prison experiences in The House of the Dead (1861). Dostoevsky’s views on the criminal mind are set out in his most famous book, Crime and Punishment, published in 1866.

Crime and Punishment has been described as a psychological account of a crime. A young man, Raskolnikov, is expelled from university and finds himself living in extreme poverty. He is in a desperate situation with a grief-stricken mother and a sister about to undergo a "sacrificial" marriage to a wealthy nobleman. So he decides to kill an old pawn-broker whom he believes is "good for nothing, evil and lives on the blood of others". Raskolnikov believes that his crime (if it is a crime at all) is at the most "a humanitarian duty", on his part, "towards mankind". After all, he would have made his mother happy, he would have prevented his sister’s "sacrificial" marriage, but above all he would have continued with his studies and thereafter be able to live honestly and make up for the crime.

In this article, I will pose the question of the possible justification of Raskolnikov’s action. Is killing an old, crazy, not just greedy but evil and sick woman, who would probably die anyway, a crime? It probably is, but looking at this crime in the context of Raskolnikov’s circumstances, is his action not justified. For he only killed a "louse" (he refers to the pawn broker as such) hence traded one useless life for his mother’s happiness and his sister’s moral deliverance? Let me not look at his action on its own but also the motives that support it, for I am trying to assess whether it is or can be justified.

Raskolnikov does confess his crime. Having been introduced to his background, one would immediately think that it is because of poverty that Raskolnikov commits a crime. In fact, while in the process of plotting it, Raskolnikov is pushed by a humanitarian motive. However, he reveals that it is true he wanted to help his mother, but that this wasn’t the real reason. "If nothing but need had urged me to commit a murder I should now be happy!" (Dostoevsksy, 1993: 303) Instead, Raskolnikov is tormented and feels a sense of isolation and separation from humanity – even from his own family. It is this that forces him to give himself up, that forces him to be once again a part of humankind – a point I wish to return to later in this paper. It later appears in his confession that Raskolnikov simply wished to prove himself a Napoleon, one capable of killing without any guilt. Raskolnikov reveals that he only longed to dare, and that was his sole motive! What a pity that nobody suspects him of being the murderer, so instead of being a Napoleon, he becomes an infamous coward left to bring himself forward. Whatever the motive, it seems as if our criminal is searching for one that seems the most flattering, and this he borrows from Nietzsche’s superman. Does this work to justify his action?

In a conversation he has with a friend, Raskolnikov shows a commendable (if not convenient) understanding of Nietzsche’s main thesis, that of mankind being divided into two groups. The first is that of the conservative majority, living in obedience. The other, however, consists of exceptional men who not only dare, but also command and, if the need arises, are also criminal creators of new values. In the latter group are the great leaders of humanity, without respect for any "sacred" laws, traditions and morals observed by the herd. Raskolnikov maintains that it is in these people’s nature to be criminals for they find no other way to get out of the common rut. Raskolnikov is an inflated egoist. I had hoped that his confession would mark an end to his story; however, we find that he soon experiences a sense of psychological drama resulting from his crime that seems to suggest that egoism is morally wrong. I wish to argue that this need not be the case.

One answer to the question of whose interest to consider in deciding which action to perform is that one should choose the action that produces the best consequences for one. However, this does not totally disregard actions for other people for the egoist’s action could be what is best for other people so that he will gain in the long run. This may often mean sacrificing one’s short-term interest so that others may immediately gain. Raskolnikov commits a crime and gives himself up so that he may suffer, but this is a short-term obstacle, for soon he will be able to redeem his act by living honestly. Moralists maintain that egoism may be a sound account of rational self-interest, but that it is not a sound account of morality that involves the consequences for others and not merely for one. If this is the case, then what about our special moral obligations to people with whom we have a special relation?

Thus I maintain that Raskolnikov’s action is justifiable, and I base this on the confusion that exists between what one would be inclined to do in a given situation and what one morally ought to do. The fact is that we simply have no clue how we would react in the situation described, however, we are more apt to make a rational moral judgment in our "armchair" observation about what is right when we are not personally involved in the heat of the action. But this is a moral pitfall for we should not expect of someone their best moral deliberation when their very lives are at stake.

I also find Raskolnikov’s action defensible based on our tendency to accept general moral principles in justifying our particular moral evaluation. Consider for example if I hate my colleague Prava and wish him dead by putting poison in his food and thereby killing him. Susan on the other hand, may also wish him dead and one day witnesses Prava accidentally putting poison in his own food. At this point Susan has the antidote, but decides not to give it to him knowing that she is the only one able to save him. She therefore lets him die. Is her failure to act just as bad as mine?

Regardless of how one chooses to describe Susan’s action, most will agree that her action is morally equivalent to mine. However, some may describe my action as that of killing while Susan’s is one of letting someone die. Whatever the interpretation, I maintain that there is no morally relevant distinction between the notions of killing and of letting someone die. That being the case, the old pawnbroker is just as guilty as Raskolnikov. She was "letting him die" by charging over-the-head prices, by reporting his I.O.U.s to charge officers and by her constant threats to get him kicked out of his apartment. She failed to observe Raskolnikov’s needs and consequently was killing him. She, in effect, was killing him before he could kill her!

People may be misguided in knowing or having reasons as to why they hold the moral beliefs they do, however they could be quite capable of defending them. This takes me back to the point that I indicated earlier. I want to take a critical stance towards Raskolnikov’s change of character, whereby he becomes a projection of his subjective turmoil and feels loneliness and estrangement even from his family. Raskolnikov, after having committed the crime, has a change of heart. He feels guilty and is only able to communicate and finally confess to another disgraced soul, a prostitute called Sonia. Rasklnikov’s hatred of the imbalances of the system, of the world in general, is suddenly turned inward, so that not only does he feel disgust and loathing toward everyone and everything, but to himself as well. And it is here that I would say that the author fails to depict a consistently committed character.

The author should have remembered that the reasons people offer in support of their beliefs/actions must always be evaluated on their own merits, even if these reasons do not motivate the acceptance of these beliefs/actions by others. What I mean is that, of course, people will often search for a good reason to justify their nonrationally perceived beliefs (nonrational because people often believe that there can never be a rational explanation for a crime). This is evident in Raskolnikov’s inconsistency in the motivation of his crime. But let us not forget that they may very well find that justification in the end. We ought, therefore, to continue to find the reasons given as satisfactory and as motivating the acceptance of the beliefs/actions they support even without the further ‘push’ of the nonrational factors that previously motivated them.

So why should Raskolnikov repent and all his freedom of action disappear? Suddenly he feels himself a louse like all the rest as he is engulfed by remorse. "Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once and for all, for ever." (Dostoevsky, 1993: 305) His experiment with "beyond good and evil" sends him craving for remorse, of making amendments to the world, to humanity. It is in prison that our hero finally starts making some sense of kinship with all of humanity. What does this transformation suggest?

The answer, I suppose, is: "Everything is not permitted". Although man is free, he is also responsible, whether it is to a supreme being, himself or to his fellow men. If there is no God, he becomes the God. Understood thus, then there can be no crime, for crime is brought about by the capacity for absolute freedom. It is through freedom that evil arises of which man is responsible. According to Dostoevsky (and illustrated through Raskolnikov), man is able to regenerate and redeem only through suffering. For this, suffering is the consequence for one who misused his freedom. However, I believe that one is "condemned to be free" and is, thus, the sole foundation of his values; nothing justifies one in adopting this or that particular value.

Why should Raskolnikov need the support of a social faith when he sets out entirely on his own, cut off from any social effort or collective historical action to remove certain obstacles? He broke once and for all what needed to be broken, for not only did he kill an old woman, but also the principle of authority reinforced and embraced by the moral law. Naturally we seek pleasure and avoid pain. Happiness, as generally understood, seems to have been Raskolnikov’s primary and sole motive. But happiness demands of us the energy to will all that we will, and this recognizes various contents which, because of the imperfection of human freedom, extend to the ultimate end (the end being death if life does cease at all).

For some people, happiness is found in wealth and for others, like Raskolnikov, in power, while for others again it is in simple pleasure. However, some contents are such that the idea of happiness applies to them smoothly and in agreement, while others seem to revolt against it so that, when happiness is placed against them, it feels as if it is not happiness but something else that is striven for. Raskolnikov was in a quest for power. Happiness is the all-embracing and naturally determined object of all acts of will. As such, it is improper to set in opposition happiness and power which was Raskolnikov’s goal, since nobody seeks power except in so much as he places his happiness in it.

What is right in Raskolnikov’s experience? I do not think I would know until I should be in such a situation myself. Then I would be able to discover what certain things mean to me, as well as how much they mean. Only then would I be able to empathize with certain individuals, for in a situation where one is forced to choose between different options, there lies a discovery of one’s own true moral values and their relative importance.

Dostoevsky, F. 1993 Crime and Punishment. Hertsfordshire: Wordsworth.