Is it good to apply absolute ethical laws to the conduct of
individuals? This, it seems, is the fundamental question of Raskolnikov’s
opposition to Dunya’s marriage. Marriage, really, is a solely personal affair:
when Raskolnikov first raises the issue of the marriage with Dunya, she
replies, “’ What right have you…,’” making clear the distinction she sees
between her own personal choices and the influence of those around her
(Dostoevsky 198). Continuously, Raskolnikov attempts to enforce his moral
convictions on Dunya’s personal affairs, making such statements as “’*I* do not
want this marriage, and therefore *you* must refuse him’” (Dostoevsky 198).
Emphasis added. Raskolnikov’s justification for such an imposition is that this
marriage, really, does concern him—“’You’re marrying Luzhin for my sake’”
(Dostoevsky 198)—but Dunya argues, “If I ruin anyone, it will only be myself…I
haven’t gone and put a knife into anyone yet!” (Dostoevsky 233). This answer,
finally, makes an impression on Raskolnikov, who scales back his complaints
about the marriage.
A parallel issue arises in the enforcement of any absolute
ethical law on the lives of individuals. One might ask, similarly, “what right
does the government have to tell me whether or not I may undergo an abortion,
own a pistol, marry someone of my own sex, or do drugs?” In each of these cases
the common argument justifying such an intervention is that these acts do, in
deed, affect the lives of others, just as Raskolnikov attempts to make Dunya’s
marriage about what *he* will accept. Dunya’s counterargument, parallel to
those of advocates for various individual rights, is that these rights are just
that: individual. Doestoevsky’s question of the application of ethical law is
an important one because it informs the ways in which our society can be
governed and the scope to which government can justify intervention into the
lives of the individual.
I agree with Lev here. Raskolnikov, perhaps through his own self absorption, sees the actions of others mostly in relation to himself. However, when he is engulfed with nihilistic feelings, he is impelled to assert the sort of individualism that Dunya expresses (e.g. "I am making decisions solely for myself, so you have no right to question me"). I think Dunya's marriage is, in the text, a linchpin for Raskolnikov's struggle - whether to accept morals and other such social codes or to reject such constructions. As Lev pointed out, it seems that Raskolnikov has not yet made his definitive position clear, just as he wavers between nihilism and altruism and rational egoism, and we will have to see how his encounter with Luzhin goes before we finally know what stance he has decided to take (although, he could always change later - he is definitely not in the "resolute" state he was at the end of part 2).
ReplyDeleteI do agree that unwritten social "laws" do dictate human behavior to some degree, but I find it hard to apply "absolute ethical laws" any society. Laws themselves are based on ethics, though ethics exist outside of laws. The main word I have an issue with is "absolute," as a majority of ethical issues are heavily situational, so absolutism cannot be applied because every circumstance is different. I do agree, however, that Dostoevsky is making a statement on how much we humans can (or should) interfere in the decisions and lives of our fellow man, which can be applied on a larger scale such as government involvement in the lives of the people.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see how Raskolnikov continues to intrude in other peoples choices so that the end result suits him better. After Raskolnikov renounces the idea of the marriage to Luzhin, even Pulchiera Alexandrova admits, "Is it possible that he's an egoist?" (240). All of Raskolnikov's family is seeing him enter through his phase of rational egoism, but there is nothing to stop him. Raskolnikov is a man set on his ideas, and once he decides something there is no changing it (just as how he was set to kill the old lady from the start).
ReplyDeleteI think the question of whether or not absolute ethical laws apply to the conduct of individuals is an interesting one, but I am not really sure it applies here. Your modern day examples, such as gay marriage and abortion, do seem to me to be positive arguments towards why absolute ethical laws should not apply to the individual, but I see no connection between this idea and the topic of Dunya's marriage. Dunya really is only marrying Luzhin for the sake of Raskolnikov and her family, it is not do to an overwhelming love for him. I think Raskolnikov completely is justified in telling her not to marry Luzhin because if he, the intended benefactor of her sacrifice, is not willing to accept said sacrifice, then Dunya should not make it. Dunya in marrying Luzhin is almost committing an act of charity, one Raskolnikov does not want to, and has the right not to, accept.
ReplyDeleteWhile Raskolnikov does push his opinion on Dunya, I do not believe this example can be pushed so far as to a government vs. individual debate. There is a distinction between law and morality. Laws are a set of restrictions decided upon by a group of people that do not necessarily have to do with morality. There is a huge difference between saying it's immoral to own a gun vs. saying it is illegal to own a gun. Law and morality are separate.
ReplyDelete-evan
Raskolnikov's actions towards his sister emphasize his continuing hypocrisy. He acts with moral hierarchy even though he is an axe murderer and presents himself as an authority to her even though he disdains authority. Raskolnikov has no real right to criticize his sister since he holds her to a standard he would never set for himself.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Emily and Evan on their points. I do not think that the meaning of Dunya and Luzhin's marriage in relation to Raskolnikov can be blown up to such a large scale as the fundamentals of morality and government. I do, however, believe that Dostoevsky is trying to make a smaller, less significant comment on how a, in some ways, "personal" action can have a larger effect on the lives of others. I think he saying that we as individuals should be truly mindful of how our actions can benefit or harm those surrounding us. I do not think that he is stating that facets of government should be based on this principle, however.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the question of the application of absolute moral laws to modern society is important, but I believe that there can be no, one true answer. Ultimately, morals are a personal choice and the idea of an real absolute moral law is, in some ways, too idealistic to ever be true. In the case of Dunya's marriage, Raskolnikov is taking his morals and pushing them upon Dunya in an attempt to persuade her. She refuses, as she has the right, and in doing so, presents her own morals - she chooses to take action because she wants to. While both Raskolnikov and Dunya share similar morals, the ultimate difference is how they go about achieving their morals. With two different actions, there is not one single absolute moral law. If social constructs agree on an action to fulfill a moral law, there will be modern law to society, but it will only be through social action and not an absolute moral law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points Lev has brought up. It is clear that these two characters, who are said to be very similar to one another, actually have very polarized opinions on individual morality. Through their discussion of the marriage, we can see that Raskolnikov is actually silenced by his sister's declaration. He is inadvertently reminded of his own failure to uphold an individual's right to freedom (by killing the old women) when Dunya makes the comment regarding "putting a knife into anyone." It is clear that Dostoyevsky is arguing in favor of personal freedom in this passage.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2, Razumikin spies the similarities between Raskonilkov and his sister, Dunya, and in their confrontation, these similarities are exposed. Raskolnikov is unable to get past the fact that someone could be doing something that intentionally does not apply to him, where as Dunya argues that all of her motives are for herself. Where they differ is on the subject of individual freedom. This is where I agree with Lev and some other commenters that Dunya chastises Raskolnikov on his lack of belief in individual freedom. It seems that Raskolnikov is subdued after this argument, and we must wait for another outburst (probably at the meeting with Luzhin. I quiver with antici....pation).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lev's comment on moral values however going back to our conversation yesterday on what is rational for Raskolnikov, he personally is a hypocrite because although he condemns Luzhkn for his intentions in his relationship with Dunya, it is evident that Raskolnikov is has also committed awful acts in his past.
ReplyDelete