Does the end justify the means? A book review of " Crime and Punishment"

Does the end justify the means ? We mostly say “of course not” but the way our society has been organized we see time and again that it is the other way around. Evil has been done for the so called noble aims. And as long as someone is caught in their early tracks what means they used to get power will be overlooked if they end up doing good for the people.

You might think a crime has a straightforward definition but reading this book you see that it more than just breaking an established rule/law. It is partly that but if we stop shot in our tracks and analyse how different laws come about you will see that a few minority participate in their making and the rest have to follow along.

Our protagonist Raskolnikov develops a theory that divide humans into two categories: the ordinary to which most people not that it is their fault but it suits everyone that they should follow individuals who belong to the other group.

But what separates these men from the masses? Were they born different? Were they marked for greatness before they appeared in time and space? Are they ordinary sons of women, with blood and lymph running through them? Are they men who saw the opportunities before them and made a gamble ? Or is it all an illusion that we are only to see after years have passed and realise some men didn’t deserve the glory we gave them?

These men participate in the formation of laws because they overstep established most of the established rules in order to achieve what they are set. You can pick example like Galileo or Napoleon on the other end of the spectrum but the common is they broke the current law to reveal or accomplish something. It is a thin line to walk but what happens if someone crosses that line? What if they were wrong?

Do these men condemn themselves for breaching laws?

Are their acts crimes in the actual sense?

What if someone had to die for things to work out, would they stop a second ?

In the book Raskolnikov is a student who due to poverty drops out of university. He eventually murders an old pawnbroker( a wicked women by reputation) and her sister Lizavetta. He also robs some of the woman’s belonging but ends up not using them. The reasons he does this hideous act are quite not so clear. But you see that even if he does not admit it is because he is poor? The second one is he fancies himself a Napoleon he thinks he won’t think twice killing a wicked woman for that matter if that’s what will enable him to carry out his noble aims in the final analysis.

The reflections from this book will vary depending on your analysis but I'll give you several things that I was able to get.

1. Environment and circumstances can never be neglected.

Had Raskolnikov been born in well to do family he would not have gone on to murder a woman to have the freedom to do what he wanted. Would he have done some other hideous things? Probably due to his inherent nature and manic inclination but maybe it wouldn't have been murder. But again with his attitude him having power would have been giving the devil gasoline.

Not that it justifies him but it can't equally be ignored. Certain environments and circumstances predispose us to do certain things and it's up to find antidotes to or we will drown.

2.Have people who you can run through ideas with before execution. You're not and Island.

The guy had developed a theory and was only seeing one side of it. It wasn't wholly faulty but he could have benefited from having a second opinion especially from people who cared about him. But by enclosing himself he made sure that his fate was sealed. And he later says after confessing to Sonia that the devil did really come to him and since he was isolated physically and psychologically he stood no chance.

Certain things are your decisions and alone to make but they can affect people you care about profoundly and that will reflexively affect you. So it will benefit us a lot if avoid unnecessary abrasion. It is easier to go with the grain unless the only way through is against.

3. Some theories should just remain theories.

No one would have judged him if he hadn't acted out his theory. There's a belief that the motive of an action really matters but in most cases people judge you by what you do and not what you think or say. You might be deceiving yourself but if you don't break the social contract people won't be as severe. It is also a warning to evaluate what we keep thinking about as you never know when your life depends on acting out your theory and if it's a bad theory you might just make life so difficult.

4.There are line we should be careful not to cross.

Not that the masses are always right but be very careful when bypassing or breaking certain rules humans have lived through antiquity. Especially pertaining to the value of a life. The identity crisis is another example.

5. Every failed plan looks stupid( in the short time)

Despite how noble a plan can be if it is fails it looks stupid. And on this point I agree with Raskolnikov partially taking into account that if he would have succeded in carrying out is plans he would not have been as guilty in the eyes of men. And what is the use of building monuments to your name when you can’t see them?

6. There's an antidote if look enough. Love and truth

Sofya Semyonovna is an example that shows that despite the environment and circumstance things can be better if you continue striving. She was even in worser conditions than Raskolnikov but she still went on live in a much more hopeful way although she was not perfect morally it was just a matter of time. She loved and loved deeply and no matter how we can dispute there just a profoundness to what loving someone truthfully can do. Her love for him was one of the forces that changed Raskolnikov’s life for the better.

7. Our biggest mistakes might be our path for enlightenment and they might be what stops the flood.

Comparing himself to Napoleon was really genius. And after reading war and peace it's understandable why he takes such a position. Not aiming to trivialise life but his simple mistake and failure enabled him to see what was wrong with his assumptions and prevented him maybe from executing them on a higher levels as that's one of the causes of the horrors history has recorded. Being intelligent he could have gone on to gain more power and imagine such a mindset to someone who leads more that a thousand men; you have your next Napoleon.

8. Different natures can exist side by side in the same person

It is not always black or what but it may be black and white. We find it difficult to accept but even in people who seem evil they can be traits of nobility and the same is true for people we think are inherently good.

There's are many other themes interesting and catchy that would require more time.

I loved the book and it was concise and much shorter compared to brothers Kamarazov.

If there's a book you'd like us to discuss feel free to message me and we can work out something.

Warm thanks to Br Bernard for the gifting me the novel.

@Chungamu