“Kill her, take her money and with the help of it dedicate yourselves to the service of humanity and the good of all. Wouldn't a small crime be canceled out by thousands of good deeds? One death and a hundred lives in exchange." (Dostoevsky, 69) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Just at the right time, Raskolnikov comes across a "miserable little tavern" and overhears these disturbing, fateful words between a student and an officer. The student goes on to argue that it is the job of a select few – extraordinary people – to “correct and direct nature” in cases where it would benefit the whole; however, when a friend challenges him, he quickly and feebly remarks that he is only "arguing for justice" and could never commit such a vile act, thus demoting himself to the rank of common and inferior people. Indirectly, however, the student has unknowingly incited the act that he supports only in theory, fueling and vindicating the same idea that had grown in the eavesdropping Raskolnikov. Indeed, the fateful moment of this encounter further convinces Raskolnikov that it is a "guiding clue" of an "inevitable pre-ordination", which reinforces his nascent belief that he is one of the extraordinary few who are allowed to violate moral codes in certain, extreme cases. It turns out later that this decisive conversation he hears in the tavern echoes exactly parallel to the radical theses of Raskolnikov's utilitarian article "On Crime". The identical statements and arguments of the conversation with Raskolnikov's thoughts and writings are too coincidental to be dismissed as mere fate, and may even indicate a certain schizophrenic psychosis in Raskolnikov, whereby the conversation in the bar actually took place in his head. While this would suggest a much more serious mental illness than was ever explicitly attributed to Raskolnikov, it is not an entirely imperceptible hypothesis – and becomes even more plausible after Svidrigailov's shocking account of Raskolnikov's behavior in public: “You look and evidently you see nothing before or next to you. Eventually you start moving your lips and talking to yourself, and sometimes you wave your hand and declaim at the last moment when you stop in the middle of the road. (Dostoevsky, 462) This new perspective presents a detached portrait of Raskolnikov's condition, free of the influence of Raskolnikov – who exposes him – and reveals a more recognizable manifestation of madness than has ever been alluded to in his narrative. Where previously his illness was limited to convulsions and bouts of paranoia, here we are given crucial evidence that undermines the last shreds of credibility Raskolnikov clings to in defense of his rationality and sanity – which in effect puts the rationality of his theories is at risk. However, while notions of destiny and narrative reliability are critical and fascinating motifs in this passage and the novel as a whole, the most important thing that can be extracted from this conversation in the tavern is the reiteration and combination of utilitarianism as a concept main theme of the novel – as one to wrestle with and engage with dialogically until considered from every angle. Indeed, ultimately, the dialogic mode of Crime and Punishment serves Dostoevsky as a means of strengthening and reconsidering his personal beliefs; and leaving some of these key beliefs at the end of the novel, while allowing others to crumble, indicates that his beliefs are firmly held, examined, and proven. Throughout Raskolnikov's entire first conversation with Porfiry isit is difficult not to believe Raskolnikov's utilitarian theory which recognizes extraordinary men "the inner right to decide in their own conscience to overcome certain obstacles, [when] it benefits the entire community" (260).” He continues to convincingly defend his article by speaking in elaborate terms about the betterment of society, glorifying those who have the courage to advocate for change; saying things like, “[the extraordinary] variously seek the destruction of the present for the sake of the better (261).” In perhaps the most critical defense of his position Raskolnikov goes into a lecture on the importance and privileges afforded to such extraordinary men: "The leaders of such men as Lycurgus, Solon, Muhammad, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals... They would not have stopped at the shedding of blood, if that shedding served their cause. It is remarkable, indeed, that most of these leaders of humanity have been guilty of terrible carnage. I believe that all great men must by their very nature to be criminals…otherwise they hardly get out of the common routine; and remaining in the common routine is what they cannot submit to” (Dostoevsky, 260). his disquisition, but, by dividing society into two categories, he also provokes the audience to active thought and participation with his theory. After all, as a reader it is impossible not to imagine himself as a member of the extraordinary, after such propaganda: “People with new ideas, the people with the faintest capacity to say something new, are extremely few in number, extraordinarily so in fact." How can one submit, after such inspired persuasion, to an ordinary class of people, a people who "have a conservative temperament, [who] live under control and love to be controlled (261)?" By presenting an argument so attractive to the extraordinary class of people, and by supplementing his defense of murder with historically supported and logically justified arguments in favor of the "sanctioning of bloodshed by conscience", Dostoevsky creates a very strong argument for a utilitarian motto "the greatest good for the greatest number." And he builds it, milks it – in theory – from every single point of view, and finally puts it into practice. Then he drops it. Raskolnikov's fall, however predictable, is very complex and important. Indeed, the reasons of the failure of Raskolnikov's utilitarian experiment allow Dostoevsky to explore and ultimately conclude that the flaws of his theory do not outweigh its benefits; he then finally states that murder is never justifiable, even in extreme cases in support of his theory both in his article and in the defense of his article to Porfiry, it cannot stand the test of practice. Ultimately Raskolnikov admits that the experiment failed in his case because he was not granted the right to kill : "the devil deceived me and has since shown me that I had no right to take that path (414)". He continues by saying: “I killed the old woman? I killed myself, not her! I have crushed myself once and for all, forever (414)…” The brutal toll the murder takes on his conscience indicates that Raskolnikov understands that his theory should remain a theory – that it is not something to be attempted. did for his utilitarian theory, when in the first epilogue Raskolnikov complains: "But those men succeeded and therefore they were right, and I was not, and therefore I had no right to take that step." At this point it seems that Dostoevsky has established that the theory should be considered on a case-by-case basis (rather than making ageneral statement for or against utilitarianism), leaving Raskolnikov unrepentant. But this turns out to be a facade, as the wheels had already begun to fall off when Raskolnikov considered running away from punishment instead of becoming a martyr for his cause; Porfiry notes: "You have already stopped believing in your theory, what will you run away with?" At this point Raskolnikov can't even come up with an answer; turns to leave the conversation – correct and full of shame. And finally, in the last pages of the novel, Dostoevsky resolves his neutrality towards Raskolnikov's theory, making him open his eyes, repent of his crime and submit to punishment. It is critically important that Dostoevsky includes Raskolnikov's repentance at the end of the second epilogue, because by doing so he manages to silence the last standing voice for his theory, which effectively kills it. Dostoevsky therefore, considering and ultimately condemning utilitarian "humanitarianism", to strengthen what he believes to be the main influence of Raskolnikov's murder. That is, the implicit influence that the environment has on behavior. The reader is constantly reminded of the "closet" of the room where Raskolnikov lives, against the dark and gloomy background of Petersburg. However, Dostoevsky makes sure to make the point by including many less subtle hints about the influence of the environment within the dialogue. Svidrigailov, for example, at one point states that: “This is a city of madmen. There are few places where there are so many dark, strong and strange influences on a man's soul as in Petersburg. The simple influences of climate mean so much.” Likewise, Porfiry says, "Petersburg had a great effect on him" in reference to the pawnshop killer. Yet the most direct statement regarding the influence of the environment on criminal behavior – and the one that resonates closely with Dostoevsky's beliefs before he was sent to Siberia – is the socialist doctrine evoked in a discussion between Porfiry, Raskolnikov and Razumihin: “For their everything is 'the influence of the environment', and nothing else. Their favorite phrase! From this it follows that, if society is organized normally, all crimes will immediately cease, since there will be nothing to protest against and all men will become righteous in an instant. of the environment on behavior, and although some parts of it are dismissed as purely hypothetical (i.e. the perfectly organized society), the root of the matter remains: that the influence of the environment on behavior is powerful and inevitable. Finally, during the trial Raskolnikov states that the cause of his crime was "his miserable position, his poverty and his helplessness (528)". In case the reader hasn't caught all the other signs, Dostoevsky makes it as simple as possible. By including this theme so directly and so often, Dostoevsky makes it clear that poverty, social circumstances, and environment seriously contribute to criminal behavior, although he carefully states that they do not justify the crime, causing Raskolnikov to be captured and punished in the end. of the novel. It is perhaps one of the most fascinating and impressive aspects of Crime and Punishment that Fyodor Dostoevsky goes to great lengths to propose the advantages of perspectives and theories that he actually disagrees with in real life. He does this with the theme of religion – having Raskolnikov convincingly challenge Sonia's faith – when Dostoevsky is himself a devout Orthodox Christian. It also does so by exhaustively supporting a utilitarian theory that it condemns in real life. Dostoevsky's ability to critically evaluate his different beliefs, through his writings, is truly impressive because it shows that he knows every aspect of –.