Crime and Punishment: The Punishment of Morality

What is morality and how is it determined? In Crime and Punishment, Roskolnikov goes through stages in which he questions his own morality. Some characters in the book are always moral; Razumihin never falters in his loyalty to Roskolnikov or his love of Dounia. It appears as though he is the most content and the least damaged of all the characters in the book. However Roskolnikov’s morality is ambiguous, even to him it seems. He is constantly questioning himself; debating between his logic and his heart. Sonia believes in his morality; she still loves him even after he confesses the murder to her. Even the judge who tries him agrees that it was an odd circumstance and he got only eight years in prison for murdering two people. So why does he not believe it? His confession shows that he no longer believes the murder was justifiable. He managed to get away with it but it weighed so heavily on his conscience that he had to confess. It seems like his punishment was more trying to avoid than trying to get caught; he is in greater turmoil before he is sentenced than while he is actually in Siberia. Then maybe everyone enacts their own morality on themselves, the guilt of doing something wrong tells each person what they believe to be wrong. Some people have a hard time breaking rules, even little ones: pulling through in diagonal parking spots or taking two samples at the grocery store. But is that a morality issue or does morality deal with bigger things? Like murder. What determines the size of morality versus little guilt?

Lear: Right or Wrong?

And so, we reach the end of a tragedy. It seems that end of tragedy would a good thing; the misery is over and we begin to see things rebuild. However in King Lear it appears that everyone just dies; there is one person left to rule the kingdom. I found that it did indeed lack the catharsis of a normal tragedy but I think that is what I liked about it. That’s how it made its point: some things are just too wrong to ever be fixed. Some things such as universal social and family structure are what help establish right and wrong. Parents should be respected. Kings should be respected even more. Obviously Regan and Goneril and Edmund missed this memo. Or they decided that they were above it. No matter who you are, right and wrong exists. However some people are under the impression that these are somehow different for them. Like we talked about in class, some politicians being believing that the normal rules do not apply to them. Sure, they can cheat on their wives. They have power. So in their minds it is not wrong. Regan and Goneril both seem to be having similar thoughts. They think that they can treat their father as they wish because all of the sudden they are in power. They do not need be faithful to their husbands and can instead lust after Edmund. Their worlds are warped. And so, we see that power has the ability to warp right and wrong. Or it has the ability to warp perspective on such matters. Either way, power is one of those funny things that can throw off the balance of society or families. It changes people and it changes what they think about right and wrong. The universal truths of what we believe to be right and wrong are changeable based on perspective.

Oedipus: Immoral or Fated?

Are the ideals of right and wrong universal or situational? Does Oedipus not being able to control his fate make the things that he does wrong? Does this make him immoral? Sleeping with one’s mother and killing one’s father would be considered universally wrong, but because Oedipus is fated to do so is it still wrong? If someone cannot control their fate is what they end up doing wrong? Then comes the idea of trying to fight one’s fate. Oedipus’ parents as well as Oedipus try to fight their fate and in doing so, set their fate into action. They see their fate as wrong and therefore trying to fight it sets it in action and they end up doing things that would be considered “wrong?” Must we then look at them as moral characters because they have tried to do the “right thing” and failed or is what they have done simply wrong? The choragus seems to believe that he should not be pitied, “Let every man in mankind’s frailty/ Consider his last day.” This thought seems to echo that people are tied to their fate and nothing they can do will change that. Whether they fight their fate or not does not affect the fate because they are pre-destined to do so and therefore will end up with their fate anyway. This brings up the idea of having one character flaw. As Aristotle pointed out, it is Oedipus’ hubris which “does him in” and sets his fate in motion. Which then makes him do “wrong” things. Can doing a thing so horrid truly be blamed on a character flaw as Aristotle thinks? It seems that Oedipus is otherwise a good person. He truly cares about the people he rules, “I have sent Kreon… to learn there… what act of mine might save the city.” He truly wishes do all that is in his power to stop the plague. He is not entirely bad and this is what makes him a tragic hero. So, if Oedipus trying to change his fate makes him wrong, or having a single character flaw makes him wrong, then it seems that everyone at some point is wrong, it simply is not in our fate to become incestuous murders. It was in his. Therefore Oedipus is not immoral, he is simply fated.

The image above would be one of Oedipus. As the one in class did, this one makes his blood appear to be tear-like. I liked this because it is less stereotypical of a picture of Oedipus. It does not show any human features; therefore it only represents the story behind Oedipus. The crown is exactly as long as the face because his hubris and his nobleness are equally part of his character as his downfall is. The bandage concealing the face seem to represent his shame and horror which has taken place in his life.

The First Ideas

If a man stole all of your belongings and you find him is it right to then take all of his belongings as well? When there are no technical rules what becomes correct? Where is the line drawn? If there is no longer any food in the world, is it acceptable to eat people? How does society, or a lack thereof, shape one’s understanding of what is right and wrong?
In our society we seem to have decided what is right and wrong. Is it right for some people to spend hundreds of dollars on a single meal while others die of hunger? In The Road Cormac McCarthy strips down everything which has been created by society to reveal, at its finest and worst, human nature. Throughout the book, the nameless main characters refer to each other as “the good guys.” They don’t eat people. They do things which may not be considered right in our society today, however the reader views them as the most moral in the story. Other characters have turned to cannibalism, forming gangs, and taking slaves.
When there is no longer society it is up to the individual human being to decide what is right and wrong.
In America prostitution is frowned up and illegal. In Japan it is largely accepted and illegal. Sometimes what the government says is illegal is still acceptable. So what makes society in general decide if something is wrong? The Dave Matthews Band has a song which states “Funny the way it is, if you think about it. One kid walks ten miles to school and another’s dropping out. Funny the way it is, not right or wrong.” Maybe sometimes the things that we cannot control are not right or wrong but simply are. Is watching a crime happen and not doing anything about it as bad as committing the crime? Is not doing a good deed as bad as doing a bad deed?
In Government we are learning about the different types of democracy and how there is no perfect way to have a society. There is no perfect way to agree on what is right and wrong then. Maybe anything is justifiable if the situation is right. It may be up an individual to decide what is right or wrong with the opinion of society or without it. Maybe we should all try to be the one moral “good guy” in our society and do things that we see as right even if doing the opposite is not punishable?