When is someone morally sanctioned to take the life of another? In Fyodor Dostoevsky's acclaimed philosophical detective novel, Crime and Punishment, the author sheds light on several important existential and metaphysical dilemmas that are universally applicable to understanding the human condition. The story centers on the story of the premeditated murder by "our hero" Raskolnikov of the old "louse", Alyona, a selfish and morally reprehensible pawnbroker. Furthermore, it describes the "other" murder, of Alyona's largely ignored (but philosophically crucial), pitiful, vulnerable, and victimized half-sister Lizaveta, in the novel's opening section, as well as Raskolnikov's subsequent "Punishment" (largely internally driven part). Dostoevsky establishes several dichotomies between philosophical binary extremes, some of which Raskolikov attempts to reconcile in the remaining five sections of the novel and in his epilogue. These polarized philosophical questions include, among others, the relationship between the secular (nihilist) and the religious (faithful), free will and determinism, anarchy and law, utilitarianism and social ethics. While Raskolnikov – whose name, in translation, implies a split personality – struggles to find his place in the world polarized of moral/ethical extremes, Dostoevsky poignantly confuses the terms of his existential debate through Lizaveta's impulsive murder to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov's moral compass oscillates between the two ethical extremes of crude utilitarian nihilism/brutally rational intellectualism and the absolutely humane, religious, and emotional. based social morality. The two polarizing characters with whom Raskolnikov shares intimate relationships, Sonia and Svidrigaylov, reinforce this binary classification. They serve as living embodiments of their respective moral values, each of which has a profound impact on Raskolnikov's outlook on life. Sonia, a childlike, victimized, selfless, and God-fearing person, maintains her faith in religious moral precepts, despite her direct experience of worldly suffering and, therefore, the irrationality of life. After Raskolnikov confesses to Sonia that "He... didn't mean to kill that Lizaveta... he killed her accidentally. He wanted to kill the old woman when she was alone..." (322), she replies, "What have you done to yourself. .. there is no one, no one in the world as unhappy as you!" (323). While the reader learns that Lizaveta and Sonia were best friends and that Sonia wears a locket that Lizaveta gave her, Sonia however, like Raskolnikov, quickly forgets about her friend's brutal murder. Instead, he selflessly recognizes Raskolnikov's moral crisis, hoping to guide him to spiritual salvation despite his significant personal loss. Svidrigaylov, in contrast, represents emotional detachment, nihilism, and utilitarian morality. He explains to Dounia what he believes to have been the main motivation for Raskolnikov's murder: "For example, I consider that a single misdeed is permissible if the main purpose is right, a single wrongful act and hundreds of good deeds... Napoleon attracted enormously Raskolnikov. ...that very many men of genius did not hesitate to commit illicit acts, but overstepped the law without thinking about it" (386). In this statement Svidrigaylov unites the two main motives of Raskolnikov's crime. The first is the belief that the murder of the old "louse" represents a socially justifiable act, since he is convinced that she is an authoritarian executioner par excellence. Therefore, killing her represents asocially just act, since his death will avenge the mistakes committed against hundreds of his victims. The second reason lies in his metaphysical need to believe that he has free will to break the legal and ethical constraints. framework that binds society and commit an act of total rebellion against the social order. This notion, which is tied to Raskolnikov's belief that he is a superman and that his destiny is to kill Alyona, stems from his high self-esteem, as well as various articles of circumstantial evidence that serve to justify these murders. , Lizaveta's murder, while appearing at first glance to be a plot detail of relatively insignificant importance, profoundly complicates Raskolnikov's moral universe and discredits the utilitarian, Napoleonic, and deterministic justifications with which he rationalizes his criminal actions. Yet Lizaveta's murder does not fit into any of his intellectual, philosophical, and moral categorizations. Raskolnikov thus reveals that his philosophical basis for committing a criminal act is inconsistent and imperfect. Lizaveta does not represent a morally reprehensible individual, but is innocent, kind, spiritual and saintly (parallel to the character of Sonia). In another context, Raskolnikov could have been quite charitable towards him, since he fits the profile of those towards whom "our hero" shows unbridled and completely impractical generosity. Since his murder carries none of the moral justifications of Alena's, but is rather accomplished due to Raskolnikov's impulsiveness to avoid being caught, as he immediately reacts by "rushing at her with the axe" (65), the Lizaveta's murder is a utilitarianism. Sin. Raskolnikov appears to be ethically inferior to her, and therefore has no "right" to kill her. Similarly, Raskolnikov attempts to intellectually rationalize his crime based on circumstantial evidence that he interprets as proof of his Napoleonic authority over the rule of law. He believes he overheard Lizaveta's statement that she will be outside her residence the next day at seven o'clock, as well as a conversation between a student and an officer in which the student states: "One hundred thousand good deeds could be done and helped, on the money of that old woman who will be buried in a monastery!... Kill her, take her money and with its help dedicate yourselves to the service of humanity and the good of all" (54), as proof of her destiny. However, Lizaveta's unexpected early return and subsequent murder discredit his deterministic justification for Alena's murder that calling him to action would surely not have given him such mixed signals: he would not have been encouraged to believe that Lizaveta would be away, for example, only to find her at home and be forced to commit a double murder. Thus, Lizaveta's unplanned murder adds further layers of complexity to the simple binary ethical universe that Raskolnikov imagines himself inhabiting. Since the murder of Lizaveta cannot be justified by any of the rational, intellectual and emotionally detached precepts of Raskolnikov (the moral influence of Svidrigaylov), nor by the extreme polar opposition of a set of spiritual, faith-based and emotional principles ( Sonia's moral influence), Raskolnikov can neither rationalize nor reconcile her murder in his mind. Rather, he represses this memory for most of the novel. He acknowledges that he rarely thinks about it "as if I hadn't killed her"; for example, after confessing his crime to Sonia, he proclaims, "I only killed a louse...a useless, repugnant, harmful creature" (327). Raskolnikov therefore rarely acknowledges Lizaveta's previous existence before.