What are your thoughts concerning Raskolnikov's theory propounded in Part III, Ch. 5 of the novel? Does the theory have any validity? Is Raskolnikov himself extraordinary or ordinary? Should anyone be granted "extraordinary" status in terms of having the right to transgress accepted moral boundaries?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
When I first read Raskolnikov’s theory I was shocked. I couldn’t believe that he thought that some people had the right to kill others. Though it was a valid case when the men in the bar said that killing the lady would benefit others, it is still inhumane to purposely kill another being. Nobody has the right to play “God” in any situation. Moreover I disliked the way that Raskolnikov said it was ordinary people’s “duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there’s nothing humiliating in it for them.” I really don’t think that they would have had a problem with their status until it was presented like such. I don’t think that this theory has any validity. Nobody can live above the law, or create a law unto themselves without wrecking havoc. After hearing about the article I can see where Raskolnikov would have convinced himself that killing the landlady was ok, but it still doesn’t mean it was right. I think that Raskolnikov wants to be an extraordinary person, and this was his way of testing himself. I think that he has discovered, due to his failing health and mindset, that he is just in fact an ordinary person.
When I first read Rodya's theory I sort of took it differently. I thought that he meant that the extraordinary possessed the courage to rise above social law (or in other words, defy a cruel regime or stand against the law if the law was unfair) while ordinary people would sit back and watch. If that was the case, I certainly would have agreed with him. In terms of moral law (Robespierre's radical ideas of eliminating the enemies of the French Revolution in cold blood comes to mind), no one has the authority to transgress, not even those who deem themselves superior. And as far as Rodya is concerned, I think that he attempted to see himself as extraordinary as an excuse to commit the crime, but as we said in class, and I totally agree--just because some everyday person commits a crime doesn't make them extraordinary or justify. Some "extraordinary" people such as political leaders (even our president) might think that transgressing a moral boundary such as torturing an enemy or even killing someone is acceptable for the good of the people. In my eyes, a leader should not have privileges above the law or the common people. There is no justification for crime of any kind, and calling oneself "superior" or "extraordinary" is just an excuse to make it seem that the crime is needed and justified.
I believe that RasKolnikov's theory is utterly disscusting. It is never okay to kill someone for the greater good. and it is definatly not okay that scertain people have the right to do this. In my opinon if the only way you can find to bring the world ahead in their findings is to kill people than you are not trying hard enough because there is always a better way. And to add to my doubt Raskolnikov can't even seem to keep his own theory straight. He doesn't know whether it is the tresspassing/murder that makes you great or if your great and then you tresspass moral laws.
His utter lack of understanding his own theory and the apalling nature of it make me believe that it is not okay.
in addition Raskolnikov cannot be extrodinary because in my opinion there is no such thing as an extrodniary man. As for him thinking that he is extrodinary, i think he knows he is not but his murdering of the pawnbroker was him attempt to become extrodinary.
First off, I do not think Raskolnikov commited the murder, so it does not matter whether he is extraordinary or ordinary. Yet, though his theory that people have the right to transgress moral law is invalid, it is valid to say people are given this right. When people commit murders under "extraordinary" circumstances, they are often aquitted of the murder they commited. People with mental illnesses, battered women, people from abusive backgrounds, and people that kill during times of war are not punished because they either did not understand what they were doing or they did a crime that was "valid" because it was commited against someone that "deserved" to die. These mentally ill or abused people are Raskolnikov's extraordinary people and the others are the ordinary ones. The extraordinary people commit crimes without consequence (or with minimal consequence) and the ordinary ones are punished. This entire book is about people who commit crimes and the reader has to decide whether or not they should be punished or left alone because there crime was valid. Is Sonya a despicable girl because she is a prostitute? Or should she not be punished for her crime, considering her awful circumstances? Should Raskolnikov be punished for the murder of Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta? Or should he be hailed as a saint who killed two women with the intentions of helping the entire poor society he lived in (again I don't think he commited the murder anyway)? Even beyond the book, look at charcters like Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor. This is a cartoon for children, and it teaches that it is okay to commit a crime against one to benefit another. Under the circumstances, Raskolnikov would be considered extraordinary. He was in a feverish, mentally ill state, the woman he supposedly killed was mean and cruel, and he is giving back to those that need help. No one should be given extraordinary status, but it is granted every time someone kills another in battle and everytime a victim kills there abuser and is not punished for the crime. A murder will always be a murder and a crime will always be a crime, but every time one is justified, the criminal is given extraordinary status.
i agree with kelsey because killing someone for the greater good is a ridiculous idea. Rodya's theory is just plain creepy and has no validity in it at all. there is no such thing as an extraordinary person, there are people who have no morality, and therefore they have no problem killing people. Raskolnikov is no extraordinary person, it seems as if he tried to convince himself he was because he logically thought out the rationality of killing the pawnbroker. however, later on we see in his own afterthought that he is a louse, and therefore ordinary.
Raskolnikov holds that by a law of nature men have been "somewhat arbitrarily" divided into two groups--ordinary and extraordinary. Raskolnikov believes that the duty of the first group is to serve, and follow the rules. The second group, those who are extraordinary, are a step above the normal. They have the right to overstep normal bounds and transgress the rights of those who are simply ordinary. They are the prime movers--the people who propel our society foward. I believe that Raskolnikov makes a very good point; without the extraordinary branch of men, the history of the world would never have progressed to the state that we find ourselves now. The most ancient human being on the most ancient field would still be standing there, trying to find a way to plant food and make a living. If no one had ever overstepped tradition and made an innovation then, the human race would still be standing there. We would not exist. I don't agree with Raskolnikov's idea that these groups are predetermined, rather they are created by man himself. The underlying idea of Raskolnikov's theory however, is correct. there are definitely different types of humans in this world-some make sweeping changes while others stay in their place and follow the rules.
thank you Dovile.
Another reason i think his idea is a poor one and is just plan wrong is that it gives me an iky feeling in my tummy when ever i talk about it. You may laugh or say i'm like 6-years-old but the fact that his theory or idea ilicits a negative physical response from me is proof that it is a bad one. And to add validity to the fact that my tummy is a good moral indicator it always feels iky right before i do something that ends up getting me introbble.
Raskolnikov's theory that men are seperated into two groups, ordinary and extraordinary, does not have much validity. Raskolnikov believes that if you're an "extraordinary" man that you are above the law and this means that you can committ murder without any consequences because you're above everyone else. I don't really believe that anyone has this power. Raskolnikov is just using this theory to justify the pawnbroker's murder. He wants to believe that he was murdering to better mankind. Murdering and bettering mankind hardly go together in a sentence. Although murdering the pawnbroker seems valid to Raskolnikov, murdering someone, no matter how useless they are to society, is never ok. Raskolnikov is just an ordinary man trying to justify in his mind a horrible crime.
Raskolnikov's theory does seem a bit radical to me. Just like everyone said, murdering is wrong no matter what, but Lauren has a point: during some circumstances its ok. Just think of the movies, the good guy is still the hero even after he kills a countless number of villains. "Murder" and "overstepping" should not be tied together. Why can't we all just get along? Does some "extraordinary" person really have to kill another in order to change things? Of course not, if that was the case then we would have the same problem that Oceania's Ingsoc government did with martyrs: kill one of them and the rest will only become more zealous. It would be better to get things done and changed in a civilized manner as we do today. I'm not sure if our little Raskol understood that back in his era. Speaking of which, I do not think that Raskolnikov is extraordinary, and I don't think that humanity should be segregated into such ill-defined groups. How can we possibly judge who is ordinary or extraordinary? What about the in-between people? Can we really judge that Isaac Newton was worth more than a supportive and loving parent just because he had brilliant ideas? I think that is just inhumane and ignorant. Everyone has talents, some people just get lucky, but most of us make some sort of a difference in the world, no matter how minute.
Also a bit more on Raskol's whole "overstepping" idea: you can overstep moral boundries and not make any difference in the world. I dyed my hair red but just because that might be out of the ordinary doesn't mean I'm extaordinary. Especially not if i sit my butt down on welfare and do absolutely nothing to contibute to society other than "overstepping" traditions. Raskol must be sociopathic or have a God complex or something like that.
The idea that there are extraordinary men and ordinary men is not a valid theory. No one should be above the law, especially a group titled that is considered the "extraordinary men". If you kill someone, you kill someone there is no getting around it. You are not a better person for doing so you deserve the same exact punishment as someone who may be considered "ordinary". The reasoning or so called justification may play a role in your mind but as other people see it, it is just another crime that has been committed. Raskolnikov believed in his mind that killing the pawnbroker was okay and that she deserved it but what about Lizaveta? How in any way was a poor woman walking into her own home and being murdered justified? Any one that does that is the same kind of person and no one should have different consequences. Sometimes your justification has to have justification. His theory is not valid, murder was still committed and it does not matter if a person believes its right, think about others that are around. Raskolnikov has caused something bigger than anything he could have imagined....not so extraordinary now.
I definitely think this theory is way off base, no one has the right to kill anyone, accept when in self defense when they are actually physiclly attacking you. It doesnt matter how extraordinary you think you are, you have no right to overstep the law. Killing someone should always be of the absolute last resort, here Raskolnikov is only attempting to make an excuse for his actions. The only thing is, he doesnt realize he is doing it because mentally he is desperate to reason with himself that what he did was right; to counteract the guilt that weighs down on him more and more everyday.
I think I'm the only one thats going to say that Raskolnikov's theory did have reasoning behind it. Now in no way does that mean I agree with murdering people, or creating a divide between "ordinary" or extraordinary" men. However, when I sat back and really thought about it, his theory does actually apply to life.
People don't have the right to play God when it comes to life, BUT we're given the choice to. And people shouldn't live above the law, but a countless number of people do. While it might not be right, unfair, or moral, it happens all the time. Think about all of the political corruption in our government, or the people who escape punishment in the crimes they commit.
While Raskonlikov's moral view of his theory is slightly messed up, his view of "extraordinary" vs. "ordinary" can be applied to history. Basically, the majority of people are ordinary. They don't govern others, they don't make extreme choices that will effect a nation, etc, they simply live their lives. (In no way is that bad though)
On the other hand, you have people, extraordinary people, who are faced with huge decisions. First things first... extraordinary isn't neccessarily a positive word. Think of Hitler... While he was certainly an evil man, he somehow gained control of an entire nation and brainwashed people into thinking that murdering innocent people was right. He had some extraordinary ability that allowed him to do that, out of all the people in the world. While he never had the right to kill, he did anyways, and his people were made to believe that he was doing it for the greater good.
In not as much of negative light, we've had great presidents who have done the same thing. They've stepped up to take charge of an entire nation, and have always had foreign conflict at their heels. While they might have not killed anyone with their own hands, they do when they declare war, or when they send soldiers into other countries.
I hope I'm not getting confusing, because I'm finding it hard trying to explain what I mean. In summary, I don't think anyone has the right to kill(which contradicts Raskolnikov's theory). In addition, its not always the extraordinary people who murder. However, there are "extraordinary" and "ordinary" people in society. Most of the time, it is the extraordinary people who take advantage of the choice to kill, and the choice to live above the law. These people are a mixture of good and bad people; people who kill for the good of another(ie Lauren's point) and people who kill for no valid reason. But whatever way you look at it, they compose a smaller group that comes from the majority of people.
LaurenP, I have to say that I love your comment, and I'm intrigued to know why you don't think that Raskolnikov actually committed the murder. I wonder if it has to do something with schizophrenia? Or anything like that?
Anyways, I don't believe that there are extraordinary or ordinary people... there are just people. But I do think that sometimes people see themselves as extraordinary and take that as an excuse for crime. Certainly people who justify conquering nations or mass murder must feel extraordinary. Hitler, for example, must have felt this way. He felt justified in everything that he did, everything that he caused. But that doesn't make him extraordinary just because he thought that he was. The only difference between people like him and the rest of us are his thoughts and the fact that he rose to power. In no way is he above other people. The same applies to Rodya. Even though he thinks himself above others, he truly isn't.
In a twisted way, I do see where Raskolnikov is coming from. If you are extraordinary (and can get away with a crime without feeling any guilt), I guess you can commit crime (I'm not saying that it's morally right). But, in reality, I disagree with him because I don't think there is distinction between people (ordinary v. extraordinary)...it's in the eye of the beholder. You may think that you, yourself, are great...but others may not. You may feel that your actions are justified while they may seem completely ridiculous to others.
Raskolnikov's theory is horrible, and it further adds to my hate for him. The fact that he could even think for a second that killing someone for the greater good is ok proves his insanity. I understand that he is being bombarded by grief and this theory is probably the only way to make himself believe that he did not do anything wrong and make himself feel better. Nobody should be able to decide who should live or die on thier own accord. he is making himself a godlike feeling and that is not acceptable.
Alright. I see what Sanjana is saying. If you can get away with a crime that involves murdering other people and still feel okay about yourself...I guess you're extraordinary in a sociopathic sense. I don't know if that was a word.
I honestly feel like Raskolnikov is really just trying to rationalize murdering the pawn broker. Obviously it's ridiculous that anyone would be excluded from guilt and granted the ability to heartlessly kill people and then be deemed extraordinary. I think Raskol just wants some way out. He wants to have a reason that it COULD be okay. There is no justification ever for killing a person. Yeah, I read up there about defending your life...self defense...but that's definately not what these "extraordinary" beings are doing, you know?
This pawn broker isn't out committing crimes. Sure, she takes extra money and is unfair BUT how materialistic and superficial is that? Even if Raskol's theory made sense....the pawn broker didn't deserve to be murdered.
No one has the right to judge when someone else's life will end.
Definately a louse.
Rasklonikov's theory is quite attractive I must say. The logic he establishes behind it is very reasonable. Who in their right minds could say that the idea of sacrificing a few for the many is not legitimate and quite pragmatic. I believe that certain circumstances call for the transgression of moral boundaries. Yet, put simply, Raskolnikov is delusional. His theory of extraordinary and ordinary people could not be more contradicting. It is a clash between realism and idealism in my mind. The theory, as I have said, is quite realistic and practical that would suit human nature favorably. But at the same time, it does not suit human nature. His theory is purely idealistic. Raskolnikov is an idealist for thinking that somehow humans will be able to adopt a system of determining who is extraordinary and who is simply ordinary. The even more unrealistic part will be assuming that once this system is established that humans will fully stay within the limitations set and not break "the rules." So, Raskolnikov's theory in my mind is not brutal, harsh, or barbaric--just impractical. But that's why its only theory--an ideal of a delusional mind.
I love the theory.Seriously. And I do not think that all of these people who claim that they would not sacrifice the few for the many are truthful. Is raskolnikov an extraordianry man? No. But he was trying to do the right thing and to help people to rid the world of a parasite. I could never have done it. But I also do not pretend to be extraordinary. However, in the past men like galileo and certain kings HAVE been extraordinary enough to go against what is supposedly right in the world.
Raskolnikov tested himself and found out he may have been wrong. But I don't think that these men who go above the law get off with nothing. They are persecuted for life and some even may feel bad about it. But they do it because they feel that their point and the good they will do is more important. Life is not pretty. and sometimes people have to die. I think we also have to realize the time that this story was written. it was not like today with all of the laws and punishments. This lady was hurting people and there was no way to stop her...except for killing her.Those that are extraordinary, unlike Rask, do not become crazy afterwards, but that does not mean that they do not have hearts and feel. rask doesn't feel bad. He just goes crazy.
Raskolnikov is wrong. But the theory holds true in some ways.I may be cynical, but the world is too messy to stand on your high horse and say that killing is not the answer.
Post a Comment