Comparing Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment

The principle character in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, is acting under utilitarian statutes, and thinks that he is doing humankind a favor by performing a single crime. He thinks that he can be remarkable in the event that he follows up on a numerical equation of human joy. In the event that he murders one pawnbroker, he spares around twelve souls who are always in her obligation. The bliss of twelve souls, he says, is more critical than the life of "a stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman, not simply useless but actually doing mischief, who has not an idea what she is living for herself, and who will die in a day or two in any case," (C and P 63). Given such a terrible individual, utilitarian calculations

Dostoevsky's thoughts regarding the uncommon man are given in Raskolnikov's discourse to Porfiry Petrovich on pages 242 and 243, Dostoevsky's questioning against the "unprecedented" utilitarian communicated humorously as an article composed by Raskolnikov. The fundamental worry of this discourse or questioning is to characterize what precisely an unprecedented man is, as indicated by Dostoevsky. Loaning the hero the utilization of this definition, nonetheless, does not connote the creator's acknowledgment of Raskolnikov's assumed uncommonness. Dostoevsky farces Raskolnikov's presentation of having unprecedented qualities in light of the fact that he conjoins the descriptive word, uncommon, with dream states, changes, daze and risk, in this manner comparing Chernyshevsky and the utilitarians with these conditions of daydream. Dostoevsky is not mocking the thought of a remarkable man; unexpectedly, he is proposing it as a probability a plausibility that is really inconceivable in utilitarianism. Instead of caricaturizing the idea of the remarkable man, Dostoevsky mocks individuals who imagine that they have the privilege

Raskolnikov gives the discourse as if he were disconnected from it. He doesn't understand the ramifications of what he is stating, he doesn't understand that what he is portraying is not him. This discourse ought to have made Raskolnikov reflect; it ought to have made him doubt his circumstance, particularly after the homicide he confers and his self-personality infection (phenomenal or customary?). Be that as it may, Raskolnikov's discourse has no such impact; he talks as if perusing a transcript or discussing a retained lyric, as though some person is talking through him and as though the words had no effect on his inner voice. He takes a gander at the ground while talking, as though panicked of the ramifications of the hypothesis for his own life, yet he never voices this apprehension, he just proceeds onward, "as he said these words and amid the entire going before tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the floor covering" (245). Why does Raskolnikov never stop to think about his own paper, when it holds the way to his self-character infection? Why does he never scrutinize the homicide he carried out, why does he not attempt and perceive whether his wrongdoing is uncommon or normal? Why does he not battle with his utilitarianism when it is self-evident, by