When is it morally sanctioned to take the life of others? In Fyodor Dostoyevsky's highly acclaimed philosophical detective novel, Crime and Punishment, the author highlights several important existential and metaphysical dilemmas that are universally applicable to understanding the human condition. The story centers on the story of "our hero" Raskolnikov's premeditated murder of old "louse", Alyona, a selfish and morally reprehensible pawnbroker. Additionally, he describes the "other" murder, of Lizaveta, Alyona's pitiful, vulnerable, and victimized half-sister, largely ignored (but philosophically crucial), in the opening section of the novel, as well as the "Punishment » later (largely internal) by Raskolnikov. " Dostoevsky establishes several dichotomies between philosophical binary extremes, a number of which Raskolikov attempts to reconcile in the remaining five sections of the novel and its epilogue. These polarized philosophical questions include, among others, the relationship between the secular (nihilist) and the religious (faithful), free will and determinism, anarchy and law, and utilitarianism and social ethics While Raskolnikov – whose name, in translation, implies a split personality – struggles to find his own. place in the polarized world of moral and ethical extremes, Dostoyevsky poignantly confuses the terms of his existential debate through Lizaveta's impulsive murder of plagiarism. » ?Get the original essay Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov's moral compass oscillates between the two ethical extremes of crude utilitarian nihilism/brutally rational intellectualism and completely human, religious, emotional. founded social morality. The two polarizing characters with whom Raskolnikov shares intimate relationships, Sonia and Svidrigaylov, reinforce this binary classification. They vividly embody their respective moralistic values, each having a profound impact on Raskolnikov's outlook on life. Sonia, a childlike, victimized, self-sacrificing and God-fearing person, maintains her faith in religious moral precepts, despite her direct experience of the suffering of the world and, therefore, the irrationality of life. After Raskolnikov confesses to Sonia that "He...did not intend to kill this Lizaveta...he killed her accidentally." He intended to kill the old woman while she was alone..." (322), she replies: "What did you do to yourself... he didn't There is no one - no one in the world who is as unhappy as you! (323). While the reader learns that Lizaveta and Sonia were best friends and that Sonia wears a locket that Lizaveta gave her, Sonia, like Raskolnikov, quickly forgets the brutal murder of her friend. Instead, she altruistically acknowledges Raskolnikov's own moral crisis, hoping to guide him toward spiritual salvation, despite his significant personal loss. Svidrigaylov, conversely, represents emotional detachment, nihilism and utilitarian morality. He explains to Dounia what he believes to be the main reason for Raskolnikov's murder: "I consider, for example, that a single misdeed is permissible if the main goal is just, a solitary misdeed and hundreds of good deeds... Napoleon greatly attracted Raskolnikov. ... that a large number of men of genius did not hesitate to commit wrongdoing, but went beyond the law without thinking about it" (386). In this statement, Svidrigaylov combines the two main motives for his crime of Raskolnikov The first is his conviction that the murder of the old “louse” represents a socially justifiable act, because he convinces himself that it is.is an authoritarian pester par excellence. Therefore, killing her represents a socially just act, as her death will avenge the wrongdoings of hundreds of her victims. The second motive lies in his metaphysical need to believe that he has free will to break the constraints of the legal and ethical framework that binds society and commits an act of total rebellion against the social order. This notion, which is linked to Raskolnikov's belief that he is a superman and that it is his destiny to kill Alyona, arises from his high self-esteem, as well as various pieces of circumstantial evidence that help justify these murders. , Lizaveta's murder, although appearing at first glance as a plot detail of relatively insignificant importance, profoundly complicates Raskolnikov's moral universe and discredits the utilitarian, Napoleonic, and deterministic justifications by which he rationalizes his criminal actions. Yet Lizaveta’s murder does not fit into any of his intellectual, philosophical, and moral categorizations. Raskolnikov thus reveals that his philosophical foundations for committing a criminal act are inconsistent and erroneous. Lizaveta does not represent a morally reprehensible individual, but is innocent, kind, spiritual and holy (the parallel character of Sonia). In another context, Raskolnikov could have been quite charitable towards her, because she corresponds to the profile of those towards whom “our hero” shows unbridled and impractical generosity. Because his murder carries none of the moral justifications of Alyona's, but is instead committed by Raskolnikov's impulsiveness to avoid being caught, as he immediately reacts by "rushing at her with the axe" (65) , the murder of Lizaveta is a utilitarian assassination. fishing. Raskolnikov appears to be her ethical inferior and therefore has no “right” to kill her. Likewise, Raskolnikov attempts to intellectually rationalize his crime based on circumstantial evidence that he interprets as proof of his Napoleonic authority over the rule of law. He considers that he listened to Lizaveta's statement that she would be away from home at seven o'clock the next day, as well as to a conversation between a student and an officer in which the student asserted that "A hundred thousand good deeds could be made and helped", on the money of this old woman who will be buried in a monastery!... Kill her, take her money and with the help of her dedicate herself to the service of humanity and the good of all” (54), as proof of his destiny. However, Lizaveta's unexpected early return and subsequent murder discredit her deterministic justification for Alyona's murder. A rational higher power calling him to action would surely not give him such mixed signals – he would not be encouraged to believe that Lizaveta would be absent, for example, only to find her at home and be forced to commit a double murder. Therefore, Lizaveta's unforeseen murder adds additional layers of complexity to the simple binary ethical universe in which Raskolnikov imagines himself inhabiting. As the murder of Lizaveta cannot be justified neither by the rational, intellectual and emotionally detached precepts of Raskolnikov (the moral influence of Svidrigaylov), nor by the opposing precepts. extreme of a set of spiritual, faith-based, and emotional principles (Sonia's moral influence), Raskolnikov can neither rationalize nor reconcile his murder in his mind. On the contrary, he represses this memory for most of the novel. He admits that he rarely thinks of it "as if I hadn't killed her"; for example, when confessing his crime to Sonia, he proclaims: “I only killed a louse...a useless, loathsome and harmful creature” (327). Raskolnikov therefore recognizes.