Crime and Punishment: should Rodion kill the old lady?

[monika]

Do you justify the murder? Would you convict Rodion? And do you think he can become a Napoleon?

[Robert]

I like very much your questions....

I think that this murder couldn't be justified, maybe no murder could be.

I have opinions on the murder, I think that is someone else job to convict.

I think that the thought of Raskolnikov are universal, apply to poor and intelligent people all over the world. The theme is: Why me ? I'm so bright but why am I poor ? What could I became if I have money /  capital to start ? Raskolnikov choosed the easy way....a murder, but in stead two, because in life you could not predict the future....

He has a murderer's thinking this Raskolnikov: he wants to kill to have money to become a mass murderer - because that is what Napoleon is ! A man who killed in battles millions maybe....but the public loves mass murderers like Napoleon, Alexander the Great and so on and always convict the "one person murderer" or the serial killer. Napoleon is a hero, Raskolnikov a murderer....  

[SebyMeister]

               I agree justified murder because killing someone who don't deserve to live for whatever the reasons are (selfishness, arogance, evilness, rudness etc) for a greater good is the right thing to do. And as long as Rodion murders were justified by his inner desire to proof himself that he can kill someone insignifiant for the mankind as the old-lady for the greater good but sadly he couldn't face the psychologic pressure and in the final he confessed. I would have loved to see Rodion running with Sonya far away, a much more happier end but the way Dostoevsky ended is flawless anyway

[helgis]

The way I see it; if he didn't there wouldn't be much of a book




Spoiler
Shame about her sister though, but maybe that was the contributing factor to his felt guilt.

[carnage_complex]

    Raskolnikov ultimately killed simply to test his own mettle.  He had no real notion of the utilitarian good, or even a sufficient knowledge of his own motives to really and truly determine why he was doing what he did.  He immediately fell short of his own thesis after the murder, which does not negate the possibility of the existence of a 'great man' so much as it demonstrates that he himself is not one of them. 

[Donato]

Roskolnikov's murder did not benefit him in any way whatsoever.  As the book brings out, he did not even succeed in finding the 1500 roubles that were hidden in a chest in the old lady's bedroom, and what he took, did him no good either. He hid the items and never even got to pawn them for money. So even if he killed the old lady for utilitarian reasons, he failed miserably. Then you have to add the unplanned murder of the step-sister, Lizaveta, who was a totally innocent victim.  In any case, speaking theoretically because without these murders, there would be no novel, I do not think he should have killed the old woman, even if she was a "sadist" and a scoundrel herself. No one should play God. Rodion was just trying to rationalize his crime by saying that she did not deserve to live, but his real motive was robbery and, as I said, he failed there too.

[DavidIvanovich]

Rodion was just trying to rationalize his crime by saying that she did not deserve to live, but his real motive was robbery and, as I said, he failed there too.

I think that the crime can be viewed in this way but Raskolnikov's crime could be more an act of what Nietzsche called 'Will to Power'. As I see it Raskolnikov represents misunderstood Western nihilism (as do many of Dostoyevsky's protagonists).

[Elohsa]

Then you have to add the unplanned murder of the step-sister, Lizaveta, who was a totally innocent victim. 

When I read the book it occurred to me that perhaps Dostoevsky wasn't quite sure about his whole "You shall not kill" message himself . That's the only explanation why he trowed that Lizaveta character in. It magnifies the disgust we feel for Roskolnikovs crime. Like Dostoevsky thought killing only old usurer wont do a trick.

[Richard]

Rodion didn't kill for the greater good of mankind but did Napoleon try to conquer Europe for that reason or for his ego? 

Rodion killed because he felt superior to other people and was bitter that his superiority couldn't make into a better way of life for himself,  his mother and his sister.

He failed on all accounts and this cause his depression.  It was only at the end did he realize that killing the old lady was not justified.

My question is did he repent because he found Christianity or for some other reason?

Rich

[carnage_complex]

No.  Raskolnikov gives three reasons for the murder; to 'get a start' in life by murdering the old woman and appropriating her resources, to become a Napoleon, and 'because he can.'  Re motive one, he was trapped and ultimately needed to assert his autonomy by overthrowing the despot who was subverting his family.  He also needed a reason to go on from day to day, and supposed that the crime would improve his lot (which he never honestly believed).  The murder only exacerbated his feelings of disempowerment, and the financial gain was trite.  Re reason two; the answer is again no, because the answer lies within the question.  Appealing to one's own judgement on the question of entitlement invalidates that very entitlement because it becomes a question of 'conscience,' which in this case represents the same base of ethics that Raskolnikov was trying to subdue.  As to the third motive, it's not a motive at all, but an anti-motive.  It's nihilism, it's defining the world by placing a one...the self, individuality...against a zero, against anything that might contravene solipsism.  
    But then, had Raskolnikov not killed the old lady, he very likely never could have lived himself.  He would have wasted away in the garret, spent the next twenty years in and out of debtor's prison, and probably died the same sort of death as Marmeladov...or Svidrigailov, who basically disproved his improvised system of ethics.

[The Cajun Karamazov]

It seems to me that this discussion is missing the point, namely - is it moral for one human being to kill another human being if it is supposedly for 'the public good'?

First of all, how should one man know what is for 'the public good'? Does mankind ever do what is truly good for him? Would the true public good be achieved through murder? And, for the sake of argument, if it is, would it be justified?

I think not. No, and only for the simple reason that only through each person helping himself could the public good ever be achieved. But how is a man to help himself in this way? Only by humbling himself and accepting and loving life and all that is in it. The model for this, in Crime and Punishment at least, is Sonya. Through humbling herself, and loving all, and doing what is required by the needs of all she knows, she is the one truly morally upright character in this book.