Firstly, it was not the theory itself, but Raskolnikov himself who failed (or call it that - Raskolnikov failed in relation to this theory). The “theory” itself, which consists in the fact that all people can be divided into 2 types: “inferior people”, “trembling creatures”, that is, ordinary, ordinary people (“material”, according to Raskolnikov). These people are obedient and conservative. And “actually people”, “having the right”, that is, outstanding people who move the world, who are allowed more than others, and who themselves determine what is possible and what is not. Assuming that he can be “entitled,” he kills the old moneylender and another woman. Further, the plot is hopefully more or less known to those who read this answer. A strange question, considering that Raskolnikov did not invent and create it. And what is the collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory if he eventually surrendered to the police, given that there are still young people who are probably also influenced by such ideas, based on the fact that Raskolnikov is not the author of this concept?
Secondly, in the work, in my opinion, there is an obvious line consisting in the theory of “this theory” and its practice, or more precisely, its practical origin for the main character. Having read the works in their entirety for the first time, I couldn’t help but wonder why it was necessary to pay so much attention to various episodes, such as the memory of a killed horse, the incident with the policeman and the girl, with this Svidrigailov, Luzhin. They did essentially terrible things, but they had no conscience for what they did (and we will never see any punishment for them). Raskolnikov's theory was born not so much from the mainstream ideas of the second half of the 19th century centuries, as much as life itself, which Raskolnikov himself saw as a witness to such episodes. And the work shows how he could not live after this crime and he is not embarrassed by the punishment itself, and certainly did not need money when he committed this crime. If only the “theory” line had been the main one, as I was taught at school, then the work, of course, would have been worth cutting by three times. In fact, there is a kind of psychological “iceberg” in Raskolnikov’s work. We see only that part of his thoughts that he thinks directly, but from his actions it is clear that he cannot survive the murder of another person, he cannot commit any nasty thing at all (not counting the main crime, but what else can be charged against Raskolnikov ? Inability to help your family?). In fact, this character is even too moral, compared to other characters like Luzhin, Svidrigailov and characters from his memories and/or third-party episodes. Those who say that there is a lot of reasoning and reflection in Crime and Punishment are wrong. In my opinion, there is just not enough of it, and it is presented as a kind of mise-en-scène, which the reader must taste and understand.
The theory did not fail, but even acquired some different forms, and as they say, “its ghost haunts” various ideas to this day. The idea that there are those who make history and can do everything, and there are those who are simply nobody and “material”. Of course, adherents of such ideas consider themselves to be in the first category (or strive to become such), being rather representatives of the second in practice (throughout their entire subsequent lives). It can be veiled under the idea that representatives of a certain people are carriers of some super-ideas, and the rest are nobody and nothing, and therefore the super-people can determine their will.
If we apply Raskolnikov’s theory to the characters in the work, then they are all “trembling creatures,” including Raskolnikov himself. If we conceptually consider the inconsistency of Raskolnikov’s theory, then its main absurdity is that the role of the individual in history is exaggerated and thereby denies the fact that a historical personality is a product of historical circumstances and social processes, and to a greater extent is rather an exponent of the will of objective processes (if this or that historical figure goes against them, her life path not as long as it could be). Most likely intoxicated by the biographies of historical figures, where any fact of childhood is interpreted taking into account the already lived life of this figure and is described as if he was destined to accomplish certain feats that he accomplished in his life, is described as if even an argument with a teacher at school Regarding some absurdity, I already said that this man would become a great scientist, for example. Or some great commander even as a child he showed developed skills in strategy and tactics. And Raskolnikov begins to believe that it is necessary to perform various feats and suppress the will of the “material”, to embody this theory, although in practice he simply did not and could not pay the old money-lender and instead of trying to get out of this financial situation, which of course was difficult , reaches despair that he decides to kill and steal money from her. But in life, everything is essentially “material”, and those who, according to Raskolnikov, “have the right” are the same people, no different from other people. And how could the murder of some grandmother to whom you owe prove the theory that there are people who determine history, and there are those who are the masses, whose history is determined by the former?
Despite its origin in the case of Raskolnikov, that is, from the practice of life that he saw, he himself could not become its spokesman due to his character and personality. He killed, but what was the burden, what was the point in that? Now he himself has become someone who is disgusting to him in the form of various scoundrels who trample on the lives of other people, indifferent to the fates of people who are, in principle, the same as him. Personally, I got the impression that the punishment he received was not enough for him, and at some point his behavior in hard labor is described. His crime remained an indelible stain/stamp on his soul, and he will no longer run away from himself. And his punishment is not hard labor, but life, knowing that he took the lives of innocent people, either trying to prove a wretched theory, or out of despair of a plight, or for some other reason, which in any case is not cost the lives of those people.
In the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky, we observe how the great and cruel theory of Rodion Raskolnikov is born, how main character tests himself by checking it. The collapse of such a theory is inevitable, but it occurs in two senses: in the real world and in the consciousness of Raskolnikov himself. The origin of Raskolnikov’s theory and its collapse form the basis of the plot of the novel “Crime and Punishment.”
The origin of the theory
Heavy financial situation, hopeless poverty and the inability to change one’s present and future pushes young student Raskolnikov to create his own theory. At the time when he left the university (due to lack of money for training), he submitted his article for publication, but the newspaper closed. After some time, he learns that his brainchild was published in another newspaper. At that time, the theory still seemed like a game to him; it did not enslave Raskolnikov’s consciousness. He developed it, found a number of evidence, looked closely at people and became convinced of the correctness of his conclusions. However, after he left his studies, hunger, stress, powerlessness and despair forced him to withdraw into himself. The theory became his main idea, its implementation, testing for “strength” moved into the planning stage.
The essence of the theory is as follows: by nature, all people are born either “decent”, “ordinary” or “great”, “special”. Of course, very few of the latter are born; nature itself decides when and where a special person should be born. Such people “move history”, create something new, and accomplish something of global importance. The rest live quietly, give birth to their own kind, they are “material” for those who are higher and more important than them. However, Raskolnikov does not believe that this makes them worse: such people are obedient, kind, but they are a “crowd”, “mass” (“... they are obliged to be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them ").
Having overheard a conversation in a pub, a young man becomes convinced that other people support his opinion. A random student voices in a conversation what arose in Raskolnikov’s soul and was waiting in the wings.
Conversation between Raskolnikov and the investigator
Raskolnikov's theory is revealed in sufficient detail in a conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, an investigator in the case of the murder of an old woman and her sister. He, as it turned out, was familiar with Raskolnikov’s article and was interested in the unusual view of society. young man. Explaining the postulates of his theory, Rodion rather carefully reveals to his interlocutor his motives for the crime, but the investigator, naturally, does not realize this. He is sincerely glad that he can communicate with the author of the article and express his opinion on this topic.
People who are called upon to bring something new into the life of humanity, according to Raskolnikov, have a certain superiority and completely different rights (moral, of course).
For example, to kill someone if necessary: “...if he needs, for his idea, to step over even a corpse, through blood, then within himself, in his conscience, he can, in my opinion, give himself permission to step over the blood , - depending, however, on the idea and its size, - note this...").
Testing the theory and its collapse
The theory so absorbed Raskolnikov, as if “someone took him by the hand and pulled him along... It was as if he had caught a piece of clothing in the wheel of a car, and he began to be pulled into it.” He is sincerely convinced that “Whoever dares a lot is right with them. Whoever can spit on the most is their legislator, and whoever can dare the most is rightest! This is how it has been done until now and this is how it will always be!” Driven by such convictions, the hero commits a crime, checking whether he belongs to those who are “stronger”.
What happens next shocks Raskolnikov - he does not repent that he took a man’s life, he is horrified that he turned out to be weak, humane, obedient “material.” The main flaw in the system, which seemed ideal, was the one who gave birth to it. The hero is tormented by fear, confusion of thoughts, no goals or ideas please the character - the soul is tormented and suffering, and the mind is torn from the realization that he is the same as everyone else.
The material in the article will be useful in preparing for the essay “Raskolnikov’s Theory and Its Collapse.”
useful links
Check out what else we have:
Work test
STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
MOSCOW REGION
"UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY"
College of Technology and Design
on the topic: “The collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory”
Performed:
Kishkina Olga Sergeevna
Korolev, 2015
Introduction
The essence of Raskolnikov's theory
The collapse of the theory of “ordinary” and “extraordinary”
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was written and published by F.M. Dostoevsky in 1866, that is, soon after the abolition of serfdom and the beginning of a change in the socio-economic system. Such a breakdown of social and economic foundations entails an inevitable economic stratification, that is, the enrichment of some at the expense of the impoverishment of others, the liberation of human individuality from cultural traditions, legends and authorities. And as a result, crime.
Dostoevsky in his book denounces bourgeois society, which gives rise to all types of evil - not only those that immediately catch the eye, but also those vices that lurk in the depths of the human subconscious.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, in the recent past a student at St. Petersburg University found himself on the brink of poverty and social decline. He has nothing to pay for his accommodation, his wardrobe is so worn out that even a decent person would be ashamed to go out on the street in it. You often have to go hungry. Then he decides to commit murder and justify himself with a theory about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people that he himself invented.
Drawing the pitiful and wretched world of the St. Petersburg slums, the writer traces step by step how a terrible theory arises in the hero’s mind, how it takes possession of all his thoughts, pushing him to murder.
Raskolnikov's theory is far from an accidental phenomenon. Throughout the 19th century, debates continued in Russian literature about the role of a strong personality in history and its moral character. This problem became most discussed in society after the defeat of Napoleon. The problem of a strong personality is inseparable from the Napoleonic idea. “It would never have occurred to Napoleon,” Raskolnikov claims, “to be tormented by the question of whether it was possible to kill the old woman; he would have killed him without any hesitation.”
Possessing a sophisticated analytical mind and painful pride. Raskolnikov quite naturally thinks about which half he himself belongs to. Of course, he wants to think that he is a strong person who, according to his theory, has the moral right to commit a crime in order to achieve a humane goal.
What is this goal? The physical destruction of the exploiters, to whom Rodion counts the evil old money-lender who profited from human suffering. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing an old woman and using her wealth to help poor, needy people.
These thoughts of Raskolnikov coincide with the ideas of revolutionary democracy popular in the 60s, but in the hero’s theory they are intricately intertwined with the philosophy of individualism, which allows for “blood according to conscience”, a violation of moral norms accepted by the majority of people. According to the hero, historical progress is impossible without sacrifice, suffering, blood and is carried out by the mighty of this world, the great historical figures. This means that Raskolnikov simultaneously dreams of both the role of a ruler and the mission of a savior. But Christian, selfless love for people is incompatible with violence and contempt for them.
The main character believes that all people from birth, according to the law of nature, are divided into two categories: “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to break the law. And extraordinary people have the right to commit crimes and break the law. This theory is very cynical in terms of all the moral principles that have evolved over many centuries with the development of society, but Raskolnikov finds examples for his theory. For example, this is the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Raskolnikov considers “extraordinary” because Napoleon killed many people during his life, but his conscience did not torment him, as Raskolnikov believes. Raskolnikov himself, retelling his article to Porfiry Petrovich, noted that “an extraordinary person has the right... to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) requires it.” .
According to Raskolnikov’s theory, the first category includes conservative, decorous people, they live in obedience and love to be obedient. Raskolnikov claims “that they must be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them here.” The second category is breaking the law. The crimes of these people are relative and varied; they can “step over even a corpse, through blood” to achieve their goals.
Conclusion: having created his theory, Raskolnikov hoped that his conscience would reconcile with his intention to kill a person, that after committing a terrible crime it would not torment him, pester him, exhaust his soul, but as it turned out, Raskolnikov doomed himself to torment, unable to cope with his in kind.
The collapse of the theory of “ordinary” and “extraordinary”
Raskolnikov's theory<#"justify">When Raskolnikov's torment reaches highest point, he opens up to Sonya Marmeladova, confessing his crime to her. Why exactly her, an unfamiliar, nondescript, unintelligent girl, who also belongs to the most pitiful and despised category of people? Probably because Rodion saw her as an ally in crime. After all, she also kills herself as a person, but she does it for the sake of her unhappy, starving family, denying herself even suicide. This means that Sonya is stronger than Raskolnikov, stronger with her Christian love for people and her readiness for self-sacrifice. In addition, she controls her own life, not someone else's. It is Sonya who finally refutes Raskolnikov’s theorized view of the world. After all, Sonechka is by no means a humble victim of circumstances and not a “trembling creature.” In terrible, seemingly hopeless circumstances, she managed to remain a pure and highly moral person, striving to do good to people.
Conclusion: Dostoevsky does not show the final moral resurrection of his hero, because his novel<#"justify">Conclusion
Dostoevsky crime punishment of schismatics
Thus, Raskolnikov’s theory was unable to provide society with a path to its transformation. By dividing people into two categories, Raskolnikov, on the contrary, pushed back his restructuring. After all, “ordinary” people also want to improve the life of society, just like “extraordinary” ones, but in the same way. Raskolnikov considered himself a strong personality, capable of committing crimes for the good of society and not subject to torment of his conscience. « He lied incomparably, but he was not able to calculate the truth” - this phrase from Porfiry Petrovich completely convinces the reader that Raskolnikov’s theory was fundamentally wrong, he destroyed it even while testing his theory, killing her sister Lizaveta along with the old woman , which he himself wanted to make happy. Indeed, Raskolnikov considered that he could cope with his own and would not suffer for the rest of his life for the murder he committed. Dostoevsky claims that the only way to transform society is only Christian love and self-sacrifice.
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was written and published by F. M. Dostoevsky in 1866, that is, soon after the abolition of serfdom and the beginning of a change in the socio-economic system. Such a breakdown of social and economic foundations entails an inevitable economic stratification, that is, the enrichment of some at the expense of the impoverishment of others, the liberation of human individuality from cultural traditions, legends and authorities. And as a result, crime.
Dostoevsky in his book denounces bourgeois society, which gives rise to everything
The types of evil are not only those that immediately catch the eye, but also those vices that lurk in the depths of the human subconscious.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, in the recent past a student at St. Petersburg University found himself on the brink of poverty and social decline. He has nothing to pay for his accommodation, his wardrobe is so worn out that even a decent person would be ashamed to go out on the street in it. You often have to go hungry. Then he decides to commit murder and justify himself with a theory about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people that he himself invented.
Drawing the pitiful and wretched world of the St. Petersburg slums, the writer traces step by step how a terrible theory arises in the hero’s mind, how it takes possession of all his thoughts, pushing him to murder.
1. The essence of Raskolnikov’s theory
Raskolnikov's theory is far from an accidental phenomenon. Throughout the 19th century, debates continued in Russian literature about the role of a strong personality in history and its moral character. This problem became most discussed in society after the defeat of Napoleon. The problem of a strong personality is inseparable from the Napoleonic idea. “Napoleon,” Raskolnikov asserts, “would never have dreamed of tormenting himself with the question of whether it was possible to kill the old woman; he would have killed him without any hesitation.”
Possessing a sophisticated analytical mind and painful pride. Raskolnikov quite naturally thinks about which half he himself belongs to. Of course, he wants to think that he is a strong person who, according to his theory, has the moral right to commit a crime in order to achieve a humane goal.
What is this goal? The physical destruction of the exploiters, to whom Rodion counts the evil old money-lender who profited from human suffering. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing an old woman and using her wealth to help poor, needy people.
These thoughts of Raskolnikov coincide with the ideas of revolutionary democracy popular in the 60s, but in the hero’s theory they are intricately intertwined with the philosophy of individualism, which allows for “blood according to conscience”, a violation of moral norms accepted by the majority of people. According to the hero, historical progress is impossible without sacrifice, suffering, blood and is carried out by the powers that be, great historical figures. This means that Raskolnikov simultaneously dreams of both the role of a ruler and the mission of a savior. But Christian, selfless love for people is incompatible with violence and contempt for them.
The main character believes that all people from birth, according to the law of nature, are divided into two categories: “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to break the law. And extraordinary people have the right to commit crimes and break the law. This theory is very cynical in terms of all the moral principles that have evolved over many centuries with the development of society, but Raskolnikov finds examples for his theory.
For example, this is the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Raskolnikov considers “extraordinary” because Napoleon killed many people during his life, but his conscience did not torment him, as Raskolnikov believes. Raskolnikov himself, retelling his article to Porfiry Petrovich, noted that “an extraordinary person has the right... to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) requires it.” .
According to Raskolnikov’s theory, the first category includes conservative, decorous people, they live in obedience and love to be obedient. Raskolnikov claims “that they must be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them here.” The second category is breaking the law. The crimes of these people are relative and varied; they can “step over even a corpse, through blood” to achieve their goals.
Conclusion: having created his theory, Raskolnikov hoped that his conscience would reconcile with his intention to kill a person, that after committing a terrible crime it would not torment him, pester him, exhaust his soul, but as it turned out, Raskolnikov himself doomed himself to torment, having failed to cope with his in kind.
2. The collapse of the theory of “ordinary” and “extraordinary”
Raskolnikov's theory is based on the inequality of people, on the chosenness of some and the humiliation of others. And the murder of the old woman is intended as a vital test of this theory using a particular example. This way of depicting the murder very clearly reveals the author’s position: the crime that Raskolnikov committed is a low, vile deed, even from the point of view of Raskolnikov himself. But he did it consciously, stepping over his human nature, through himself.
By his crime, Raskolnikov excluded himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admitted to Sonya Marmeladova. This detachment from people prevents Raskolnikov from living. His human nature does not accept this. It turns out that a person cannot live without communicating with people, even such a proud person as Raskolnikov. Therefore, the hero’s mental struggle becomes more intense and desperate, it goes in many directions, and each one leads him to a dead end.
Raskolnikov still believes in the infallibility of his idea and despises himself for his weakness and mediocrity, and at the same time calls himself a scoundrel. He suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister, thinking about them as painfully as he thinks about the murder of Lizaveta. And he drives away his thoughts, because they haunt him and require him to resolve the question of what category to include close people according to his theory. According to the logic of his theory, they should be classified as a “lower” category, and, therefore, the ax of another Raskolnikov may fall on their heads, and on the heads of Sonya, Polechka, Katerina Ivanovna. Raskolnikov must, according to his theory, give up those for whom he suffers. Must despise, hate, kill those he loves. He can't survive this.
Raskolnikov's human nature clashed most sharply with his inhuman theory here, but the theory won. And therefore Dostoevsky, as it were, comes to the aid of the human nature of his hero. Immediately after this monologue, he introduces Raskolnikov's third dream: he again kills the old woman, and she laughs at him. A dream in which the author brings Raskolnikov's crime to the people's court. This scene reveals the full horror of Raskolnikov's act.
When Raskolnikov's torment reaches its climax, he opens up to Sonya Marmeladova, confessing his crime to her. Why exactly her, an unfamiliar, nondescript, unintelligent girl, who also belongs to the most pitiful and despised category of people? Probably because Rodion saw her as an ally in crime. After all, she also kills herself as a person, but she does it for the sake of her unhappy, starving family, denying herself even suicide. This means that Sonya is stronger than Raskolnikov, stronger with her Christian love for people and her readiness for self-sacrifice. In addition, she controls her own life, not someone else's. It is Sonya who finally refutes Raskolnikov’s theoretical view of the world around him. After all, Sonechka is by no means a humble victim of circumstances and not a “trembling creature.” In terrible, seemingly hopeless circumstances, she managed to remain a pure and highly moral person, striving to do good to people.
Conclusion: Dostoevsky does not show the final moral resurrection of his hero, because that is not what his novel is about. The writer wanted to show what power an idea can have over a person and how terrible and criminal this idea can be. The hero's idea of the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life has defeated theory.
Thus, Raskolnikov’s theory was unable to provide society with a path to its transformation. By dividing people into two categories, Raskolnikov, on the contrary, pushed back his restructuring. After all, “ordinary” people also want to improve the life of society, just like “extraordinary” ones, but in the same way. Raskolnikov considered himself a strong personality, capable of committing crimes for the good of society and not subject to torment of his conscience. “He lied incomparably, but he couldn’t calculate the truth” - this phrase from Porfiry Petrovich completely convinces the reader that Raskolnikov’s theory was fundamentally wrong, he destroyed it even while testing his theory, killing her sister along with the old woman Lizaveta, whom he himself wanted to make happy. Indeed, Raskolnikov considered that he could cope with his own and would not suffer for the rest of his life for the murder he committed.
Dostoevsky argues that the only way to transform society is through Christian love and self-sacrifice.
Why did Raskolnikov's theory fail? and got the best answer
Answer from Christie[guru]
According to Raskolnikov's theory, all people are divided into two categories. Some, “ordinary” people, are obliged to live in humility, obedience and obedience; they do not have the right to transgress legal laws, because they are ordinary. These are “trembling creatures,” “material,” “not people,” as Raskolnikov calls them.
Others - “extraordinary” - have the right to transgress the law, to commit all sorts of atrocities, outrages, crimes precisely because they are extraordinary. Raskolnikov speaks of them as “the people themselves,” “Napoleons,” “the engines of human history.” Raskolnikov believes that the lower rank exists in order to produce “their own kind.” And “supermans” are people who have a “gift or talent” who can say a new word in their midst. “The first category is the master of the present, and the second is the master of the future,” says Raskolnikov.
Raskolnikov proves that “extraordinary people” can and should “transgress the laws,” but only for the sake of an idea “saving for humanity.”
Of course, when creating his theory, Raskolnikov considered himself in absentia to be “people.” But he needs to test this in practice. This is where the old woman-pawnbroker turns up. On it he wants to test his calculation, his theory: “One death and a hundred lives in return - but this is arithmetic! And what does the life of this consumptive, stupid and evil old woman mean on the general scale? Nothing more than the life of a louse or a cockroach, and it’s not worth it, because the old woman is harmful.”
So, without having the necessary material condition. Raskolnikov decides to kill the moneylender and thus obtain the means to achieve his goal. But according to the theory of the hero of the novel, he has the right to “step over” if the fulfillment of his ideas (saving, perhaps for humanity) requires this.
Raskolnikov at the beginning (before the crime) sincerely believes that his crime will be committed “in the name of the salvation of mankind.” Then he admits: “Freedom and power, and most importantly power! Over all the trembling creatures, over the entire anthill! That’s the goal!..” Subsequently, he explains to Sonya: “I wanted to become Napoleon, that’s why I killed him.” He longed to be among those to whom “everything is permitted”: “who dares much.” Here is the last confession that defines his goal: “I didn’t kill to help my mother. Nonsense! I did not kill so that, having received funds and power, I could become a benefactor of humanity. Nonsense! I just killed, I killed for myself, for myself alone... I needed to find out then and quickly find out whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! . Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right? »
The result and means of the crime did not coincide with the lofty goals that he proclaimed. “The end justifies the means” - this is Raskolnikov’s casuistry. But the hero did not have such a right goal. Here the end does not justify the means, but points to the incorrectness and worthlessness of such means and results as murder. Rodion Raskolnikov's theory broke down and collapsed.
Dostoevsky does not agree with Raskolnikov's philosophy. According to the author, permissiveness is terrible, inhumane and therefore unacceptable.
The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche created the theory of “blond beasts”, “purebred Aryans”. “People are divided into “masters” and “slaves,” he said, “and masters -” strong personalities", to "supermans" - everything is permitted." Following this theory, these “supermans” have the right to disregard the law and morality, destroy and suppress everyone who gets in their way. Later, Nietzsche's theory served as the basis for the creation of fascist ideology, which brought many misfortunes and disasters to all of humanity.
The anti-humanity of Raskolnikov's theory is beyond doubt. It is clear and obvious that no goal can justify the means, and even more so, “a goal that requires wrong means is not a right goal.”
For Dostoevsky, a deeply religious man, the meaning of human life lay in comprehending the Christian ideals of love for one's neighbor.