RASKOLNIKOV, HAMLET, MEURSAULT: A STUDY IN PERSONAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

by

Krisann E. Muskievicz, B.S.

W
IE
THESIS
EV
Presented to the Faculty of

The University of Houston-Clear Lake

in Partial Fulfillment
PR

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-CLEAR LAKE

July, 2004

Copyright 2004, Krisann E. Muskievicz

All Rights Reserved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 1422672

Copyright 2004 by
Muskievicz, Krisann E.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

W
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
EV

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

PR

UMI
UMI Microform 1422672
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 RASKOLNIKOV, HAMLET, MEURSAULT: A STUDY IN PERSONAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

by

Krisann E. Muskievicz

W
IE
EV

APPROVED BY
PR

Craig Wl>ne, Ph.D., Chair

°\ UaM h .
Keith Parsons, Ph.D., Reader

/ .-4 M_~ -j. __

Howard Eisner, Ph.D., Associate Dean

ruce Palmer, Ph.D., Dean

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To my husband, Ted, and
my mother, Jerrylynn.

W
Thank you for encouraging me and empowering my dreams.
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Craig White for directing my research
and patiently helping me complete this process. His thoughtful, challenging
encouragement will always be appreciated.

W
I would also like to thank Dr. Keith Parsons for serving as my reader and prompting this
investigation as part of the coursework for Philosophy of Religion, University of
Houston-Clear Lake, Fall 2003.
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT

RASKOLNIKOV, HAMLET, MEURSAULT: A STUDY IN PERSONAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

Krisann E. Muskievicz, M.A.

The University of Houston-Clear Lake, 2004

Thesis Chair: Craig White

W
This investigation examines the personal motives, ethics, and accountability
IE
involved in decision-making through an analysis of three historically diverse literary

characters. Crime and Punishment and Hamlet offer protagonists who wrestle between
EV

emotional retribution and spiritual accountability; The Stranger, in contrast, presents an

atheistic protagonist who fears no spiritual consequence. Raskolnikov, Hamlet, and

PR

Meursault respectively display fatalism, free will, and indeterminism, and their reactions

to injustice reflect these spiritual beliefs. The examination of the characters’ retributive

acts reveals the potential effects spirituality may have on the perception of accountability

and the process of decision-making. Each text reveals social norms within varied historic

frameworks, prompting a reflection on contemporary applications of previously accepted

standards. However, a contemporary context may render previous standards

inapplicable, challenging society to redefine personal accountability in terms of social—

rather than spiritual—responsibility.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. Introduction: Accountability and Context............................................................... 1

II. Raskolnokiv: From Fatalism to Free W ill................................................................ 7

III. Hamlet: Accountability and Free W ill.................................................................... 38

IV. Meursault: An Existential Interpretation of Accountability..................................68

V. Epilogue: From Spirit to Society.............................................................................90

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................94

W
IE
EV
PR

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Introduction: Accountability and Context

For thousands of years, civilization has contemplated the factors that influence

our decision-making processes. The motives and outcomes related to our decisions

create ripples of action and reaction, affecting not only ourselves but also the lives of

those around us. Especially in reaction to perceived injustices, our decisions have the

dangerous potential to be passionate and irrational or calculated and judicious, either

perpetuating or resolving our problems.

How, considering the gravity of life-altering choices, do we arrive at our

decisions? From whom do we seek guidance? Are we free to determine our own futures,

W
or are our patterns and choices determined for us? Do we guide ourselves, or are we led
IE
by signs, messengers, and gods? How, through time, have we attempted to answer our

questions about justice, injustice, and retribution?

EV

Literature offers many models for us to consider as representations of humanity’s

decision-making processes. This thesis will investigate the personal motivation, ethics,
PR

and accountability of decision-making through an examination of three diverse literary

characters. A consideration of Dostoyevsky’s tragic hero Raskolnikov in Crime and

Punishment (1866), Shakespeare’s hesitant hero in Hamlet (1603), and Camus’s

existential Meursault from The Stranger (1942) will provide a foundation for an

analytical examination of human reactions to injustice. These characters’ unique

situations and their struggles with the passions of injustice and revenge produce diverse

results. However, as a reader examines each character’s vengeful decision, the question

of personal accountability persists.

- 1
-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

Personal accountability, including individual morals, emotions, and perceptions of

right and wrong, causes people to hinge decisions they make between revenge and

restraint on the likelihood of social acceptance. Human beings, as represented in

literature, often make choices on the basis of communal expectations and consequences,

which may also be influenced by fundamental beliefs about free will, determinism, and

the possibility of an ultimate spiritual judgment. Raskolnikov, Hamlet, and Mersault

independently react to a perceived injustice by committing murder. In investigating their

cruel decisions, this thesis will examine their arguments and actions not only in their

social contexts but also in terms of their respective spiritual contexts. The parallels

W
between the characters and their spiritual beliefs will offer insight into their motives for

believing that revenge by murder is a spiritually justifiable decision.

IE
As an example of a character reacting to determinism, Raskolnikov in
EV
Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment murders a pawnbroker, an old woman, because he

feels it is his destiny to do so. He perceives coincidences to be divine guidance, and his

trust in a deterministic fate leads him to murder. Because Raskolnikov feels the woman
PR

and the social system she represents have insulted his pride, he murders her to assert his

perceived superiority over the unjust system. A feigned religious reverence drives him to

absolve himself of responsibility. Raskolnikov’s efforts to follow destiny eventually lead

to his incarceration, however, as his personal guilt overcomes him and he confesses.

Raskolnikov’s interpretation of determinism does not serve him well, and ultimately his

perceptions o f retribution, justice, and spiritual consequence evolve. Determinism, as

Raskolnikov interprets it, releases him from self-direction and ownership of his actions.

He views the pawnbroker’s murder, initially at least, as a determined duty to society for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

which no consequence is due. His sense of personal accountability eventually does

surface, however, as he realizes that his community will not embrace this vengeful

decision. Therefore, the character of Raskolnikov raises questions of responsibility

within determinism and the possibility of redemption offered by free will.

Likewise in Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet faces issues o f injustice and reaction;

however, his case for dutiful revenge is challenged by free will, his modem conscience,

and his uncertainty about divine expectations. Even though Hamlet is set centuries

before Crime and Punishment, its title character is a more modem thinker than

Raskolnikov. Within this context, Hamlet wrestles with hesitation and the forethought of

W
consequence. Like Raskolnikov, he faces the challenge of interpreting what he believes

to be a spiritual direction. However, unlike Raskolnikov, Hamlet additionally wrestles

IE
with his own self-determination and his fear that he will be held accountable for either
EV
misinterpreting or ignoring supernatural signs. Hamlet’s free will causes him to reflect

on vengeance and obligation in a way that Raskolnikov does not. Where Raskolnikov

acts quickly on his perceived destiny, Hamlet exercises his personal agency by waiting
PR

for additional signals and by doubting the signs he already sees. Hamlet’s hesitation and

his stmggle with free will culminate in an act of revenge and, ultimately, his own death.

Hamlet does die as an indirect result of his vengeful choice, and the imposition of divine

consequence within the frame of human choice is portrayed through this tragedy. Just as

the reader is prompted by Raskolnikov to contemplate free will as opposed to

determinism, Hamlet forces us to consider the relationship between ability and

obligation. In reaction to injustice, must we make harmful, vengeful decisions? Simply

because we are able, are we obligated?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

This question of accountability is also posed by Meursault in The Stranger. He is

willing to commit murder in a capricious defense of his friend, but is Meursault obliged

to do so? If not, then why does he act? This character represents the many decisions that

may be made in defiance of expectations or any assumed determinism. Meursault

demonstrates that the passion of instantaneous choice often does not allow for the

contemplation of expectations, and sometimes decisions result in the opposite of any

predicted action. In The Stranger, Meursault’s sense of injustice is barely provoked, yet

he kills a man without the slightest contemplation of consequence. He commits his act

without purpose and with only an abstract ownership of the right to revenge. Meursault

W
reacts to an insult to his friend, and his ability to justify the action is quite difficult—

unless, like Meursault, one does not believe in a framework of accountability or a

IE
spiritual lawmaker. Where Raskolnikov and Hamlet wrestle with determinism and free
EV
will, Meursault neither fears nor honors any God. This character’s irreverence for

spiritual consequences forces the examination of retribution as it exists outside of

ultimate judgment.
PR

The premise of perceived injustice links these dissimilar characters; so does a

reader’s curiosity about the spiritual trust they place in their decisions. How do

Raskolnikov, Hamlet, and Meursault, acting on what they seem to believe, justify their

actions or their beliefs? How does Raskolnikov make himself believe that his God

created him to be an above-the-law murderer? How does his personal agenda push him

to physically avenge a perceived moral insult? Also, when Hamlet finally does avenge

his father’s death, does he murder out of obligation or morbid desire? Is he forced to act

the way he does? Additionally, what causes Meursault to kill? Why does he react so

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 violently to a seemingly slight injustice? Is that what he is supposed to do? Are all of

these acts committed as part of a predetermined plan, or does each person determine his

or her own choices? How does each character spiritually justify his reaction to injustice?

This thesis will examine, in addition to the primary texts and literary criticism,

scholarly philosophical writings in an effort to understand the motives of decision­

making. The debate between determinism and free will will be central to the discussion

of Crime and Punishment and Hamlet, and an exploration of indeterminism will aid the

investigation of The Stranger. In Raskolnikov, Hamlet, and Meursault, we see characters

acting with varying levels of knowledge relating to consequences that cause a reader to

W
question the relationships between injustice, action, ability, and obligation.

A secondary resource in the pursuit of this question will be Agency and

IE
Responsibility: Essays on the Metaphysics o f Freedom (2001), edited by Laura Waddel

Ekstrom. This collection of essays will lend insight into the nature of guilt and the
EV

responsibility one takes for one’s actions. These essays also address the nature of free

action and the force of causal determinism. Furthering the examination of guilt will be an
PR

analysis of Alvin Plantinga’s and J.L. Mackie’s debate about the free will defense. Their

debate forces the question of responsibility to those who believe we are powerless within

a divine plan and do not act of our own volition. Additional views on this topic will be

provided by David Lewis’s article, “Are We Free to Break the Laws?” Finally, because

Camus is specifically considered to be an existentialist writer, Marjorie Grene’s

Introduction to Existentialism will provide background about this school of thought.

Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare write within the traditional belief that an ultimate spiritual

judge exists; Camus presents a character who clearly does not. Perceptions of justice and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

revenge change radically when humans take all justice and retribution into their own

hands.

Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, and Camus represent complex characters making

difficult decisions at varying levels of contemplation, action, and repercussion. We also

see differing motives for their decisions. Referencing literary criticism and philosophical

writings in the analysis, this thesis will examine these characters’ decisions, their possible

motives, and their culpability for respective acts of retribution. An epilogue will

consider the characters’ examples in a contemporary context, asserting the prospect that

accountability is increasingly based on social rather than spiritual expectations.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Chapter One
Raskolnikov: From Fatalism to Free Will

We all encounter injustice as part of the human experience. Life is an unfair

proposition and we do not have control over the wrongs and injustices we face.

However, we do have control over our reactions to injustice. This freedom of choice has

the potential to be both a privilege and liability. While we are empowered to stand up for

ourselves, we are also responsible for injustice if our reactions perpetuate wrong.

It may be difficult to react to injustice in a way that is assertive yet harmless. A

constructive reaction achieves a tricky balance between emotional impulses and rational

W
considerations. Our first response to injustice is often a feeling of being offended or

slighted. If no reconciliation is possible after the initial sting of insult subsides, one must
IE
choose between seeking retribution and letting the insult go unanswered.
EV

Understandably, pride and anger often prevent individuals from completely ignoring

injustice. In deciding to seek some sort of retribution, an individual attempts to take what

he or she considers to be an appropriate degree of action in an effort to restore the

PR

balance that existed before the injustice.

Perceptions of appropriateness vary, but one would be hard pressed to defend

murder as an appropriate response to wrong. However, Raskolnikov, Hamlet, and

Meursault each take the law into their own hands and choose murder as a reaction to

injustice. Because their responses are so drastic, our focus will be the decision-making

process by which these characters justify murder as an appropriate reaction to injustice.

As an example of a character attempting to restore balance through retribution,

-7-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 8

Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment murders a pawnbroker because, to

him, she personifies systemic poverty and ignorance. Raskolnikov seeks to challenge the

broader governmental system that imposes poverty and ignorance, but because it would

be difficult for Raskolnikov to take on an entire social class or governmental structure, he

singles out for attack an individual who represents the unjust system. This situation pits

one person against another, when, if it were not for a larger injustice, the two individuals

would not necessarily have a direct conflict. Therefore, his action is more a revolt

against a broken system than an act against the pawnbroker as an individual.

Raskolnikov willingly operates under a belief in fatalism, an extreme

W
interpretation of Christian determinism. Acting as a fatalist, Raskolnikov compels

himself to fulfill an unchangeable divine plan. According to his belief, it is his destiny to
IE
perform a favor to society by killing the pawnbroker; however, his belief in the
EV

unchangeable nature of destiny is one of convenience rather than conviction.

Raskolnikov convinces himself that his purpose for the murder is to challenge poverty

and ignorance, and by killing someone who perpetuates this injustice, he betters society
PR

by proving the government’s flaws. As the novel later reveals, Raskolnikov chooses to

think he is an agent of God and he adopts God’s plan as an excuse to act out a self-

fulfilling prophecy. However, as he contemplates the crime, he is convinced he will not

only get away with the murder but also eliminate one of society’s ills.

At the time of the murder, Raskolnikov is confident that he is responding

appropriately to injustice. His temporary belief in fatalism provides an assurance that he

acts in accordance with God’s wishes. As we shall see, Raskolnikov’s situation differs

from Hamlet’s and Meursault’s in that Raskolnikov believes he is in a supernatural

Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 dialogue with God. This sort of divine endorsement, if it were true, would confirm

murder as the appropriate action. Unlike Hamlet, who is hesitant to accept supernatural

guidance, and Meursault, who is an atheist, Raskolnikov’s belief in fatalistic determinism

causes him to trust supernatural guidance. This trust allows him to believe murder is both

appropriate and justified. Raskolnikov’s fatalistic belief also permits him to perceive

destiny as incompatible with personal responsibility or spiritual accountability.

Raskolnikov chooses to believe that he is not responsible for what he cannot control.

While he may actually be driven by a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a fated destiny,

Raskolnikov accepts coincidental circumstances, like the availability of a weapon and the

W
knowledge of when the victim will be alone, to be affirmations of God’s grand plan. For

Raskolnikov, this grand plan apparently negates his personal responsibility and spiritual
IE
accountability, however much we may be able to interpret otherwise. Raskolnikov
EV
willingly transforms coincidence into divine guidance, believing that he is destined to

actualize his angry desire for retribution. Raskolnikov appears to trust in divine guidance

primarily because, unlike Hamlet and Meursault, he initially shirks his personal
PR

accountability. Though later he will admit his responsibility for his choices and actions,

as he contemplates murder he hides behind an alleged destiny. He finds it convenient to

blame the grand plan for his action rather than accepting personal responsibility or

spiritual accountability.

In this fated plan, according to Raskolnikov’s deterministic beliefs, God directs

him to “get back” at society for subjugating him to a life of poverty. Raskolnikov views

himself as an educated, sophisticated man, and he is frustrated with the lack of

opportunities open to someone of his intellectual caliber. His anger lies with an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10

economically strapped government and the ignorant, complacent citizens who sustain it.

It would be irrational, however, to try to challenge the entire country alone. Instead, he

attempts to take control of a disorderly system by asserting his individuality through

murder. By murdering the pawnbroker, Raskolnikov reveals the faults of the oppressive

system. Further, by murdering under the auspices of fatalistic determinism, Raskolnikov

absolves himself o f personal responsibility and spiritual accountability, while still able to

act on his desire for retribution.

While murder is an irrational solution, it is one Raskolnikov feels he can

accomplish. He is driven to murder by anger and disempowerment, but the belief in a

W
predetermined plan gives Raskolnikov the endorsement he desperately desires.

Determinism, as incompatible with personal accountability, affords him an endorsement

IE
and an excuse to justify murder as an appropriate reaction. If Raskolnikov were
EV
empowered to rationally bring about social change in the first place, he probably would

not have been so desperate and frustrated. However, his isolation and anger manifest in a

self-fulfilling prophecy where Raskolnikov murders Aliona and seeks to blame an

PR

omnipotent God for the decision. If Raskolnikov can defy the government’s laws and

murder without an anticipated consequence, he can achieve the retribution he seeks.

While operating under the alleged protection of divine guidance, he attempts to prove his

superiority over an oppressive system. Raskolnikov seems to trade in the destiny he has

for the one he wants, ironically displaying free will through the creation of a murderous

self-fulfilling prophecy.

The self-fulfilling prophecy grows out of Raskolnikov’s anger, and he seeks to

show that an individual has the power to escape the system’s reach. A system that cannot

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 11

control an individual would therefore not be fit to govern a nation. As a favor to his

community, Raskolnikov attempts to prove the unfit power attributed to the governmental

system. The murder he commits involves the sacrifice of one life. In Crime and

Punishment: Murder as Philosophic Experiment, A.D. Nuttall discusses the nineteenth

century Russian utilitarian context of morality in which such a sacrifice is acceptable:

‘“ Ask in every situation which presents itself what action will produce most happiness,

least pain, and do that.’ By such a morality any action can be justified by context. The

murder of a thousand people can be justified if it prevents the murder o f a thousand and

one (other) people,” (45). Therefore, according to Raskolnikov and this line of thinking,

W
the murder of the pawnbroker can be justified if it frees those who owe her money while

proving the limited effectiveness of the unjust society in which she thrived.
IE
A self-fulfilling prophecy grows out of this attempt to rationalize the crime.
EV
Raskolnikov uses fatalism as an excuse for his barbaric behavior; despite his beliefs in

inevitability, however, he truly determines his own action. In order to examine

Raskolnikov’s failed experiment with fatalism, we will review the process by which he
PR

errantly transfers his personal responsibility over to God. Raskolnikov’s chooses to feel

that God issues a “call to action,” and this willingness to blame God pervades

Raskolnikov’s actions as he operates under fatalism.

Raskolnikov’s perceived destiny for murder begins when he, in need of money,

goes to Aliona and pawns a ring for some quick cash. The transaction reminds

Raskolnikov of his destitute status, angering him. His anger is latent until he has a dream

about a peasant who kills a mare. In the dream, Raskolnikov is seven years old and he is

with his father on the outskirts of their town. They happen upon a rowdy crowd of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 12

peasants, one o f whom, Mikolka, offers to take the whole group on his horse-drawn

wagon. The mare, however, is thin, old, and clearly not capable of pulling a cartload full

of people. Mikolka is insensitive to the burden this places on the horse, stating, “This

little mare, I tell you, you guys, she breaks my heart. She don’t earn her keep, so if I kill

her, so what! All aboard, I say” (54). This brutal indifference appalls the young

Raskolnikov and he asks his father how anyone could be so cruel.

The dream is important in Raskolnikov’s rejection of responsibility because he

uses it as a glimpse into his inevitable future. In the dream, the father tries to pull

Raskolnikov away from the scene, but before he is able, Raskolnikov sees Mikolka kill

W
the mare: “ ‘Watch it! ’ he shouts, and with all his might he deals the poor horse a

shattering blow. The mare staggers, sits back, is about to try pulling again, but the bar
IE
comes down full force on her back. She falls to the ground as though all four legs had
EV
been knocked out from under her at once” (56). Enraged, Raskolnikov flings himself on

Mikolka, swinging his fists at the killer. Raskolnikov is finally pulled away from the

situation and he wakes up, drenched in sweat. The dream both repulses him and piques
PR

his interest in accomplishing the murder. After all, if God is sending a message of

murder, who is Raskolnikov to deny the sign? At this point, he completely succumbs to

fatalistic determinism, absolves himself of personal responsibility, and agrees to follow

God’s supposed plan.

Raskolnikov willingly surrenders his personal responsibility and creates a

metaphoric connection between his dream and his idea about murdering Aliona.

Intending to justify murder as the appropriate action, he immediately interprets the dream

as a sign from God. Under fatalism, if God is urging Raskolnikov to act upon the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 13

impulse to kill, then it must be the appropriate reaction to injustice. However, it is

possible that Raskolnikov has this specific dream because he already has murder on his

mind. As a fatalist, though, he chooses to consider the images as part of a dialogue with

God. Raskolnikov exclaims, “God! Will I really?...Will I really take the ax, will I really

hit her on the head, split open her skull.. .will I really slip on the sticky warm blood,

break open the lock, steal and shiver.. .and hide, all bloody.. .with the ax .. .Good Lord,

will I really?” (57). His questions imply that God knows whether or not Raskolnikov will

murder, and though Raskolnikov is initially shocked by the prospect, he seems relieved to

give up his personal responsibility and spiritual accountability in the decision.

W
Seeking to absolve himself of his personal responsibility, Raskolnikov readily

accepts God’s determination and releases all spiritual accountability. While his level of
IE
obedience may appear pious, for Raskolnikov, it is truly an excuse. Fully consumed by
EV
fatalistic determinism, he contrives a likeness between the old mare and Aliona, possibly

believing neither pulls their weight in society or that they stall the progress of the

community. He is quick to see a relationship between the dream and his growing
PR

intention to murder the pawnbroker. Even though he is disgusted by the mare’s death in

the dream, Raskolnikov now creates a link between himself and Mikolka. At this point,

the memory of Mikolka is reassuring rather than appalling. Raskolnikov extends the

metaphor to compare himself to Mikolka, affirming that as Mikolka kills the old mare,

Raskolnikov will kill Aliona. The idea that Aliona is a drain on society will be further

endorsed by a conversation Raskolnikov coincidentally overhears, but Nutall’s utilitarian

context of morality has already been integrated by Raskolnikov’s attempt to rationalize

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 14

his murderous reaction to injustice. Raskolnikov willingly believes the murder of one

prevents the suffering of a thousand.

Raskolnikov rationalizes coincidences, like this dream and overheard

conversations, as confirmations of his destined fate as a murderer. He later observes the

availability of a weapon and the opportunity to commit the crime to be divine guidance,

and he feels affirmed by these “signs” from God. He feels a sense of social superiority,

likening himself to Napoleon, and he feels that the highest level of society is above the

consequences set for the masses. Therefore, he believes he can commit a crime and will

not get caught. In relieving himself of the responsibility for his actions, he only

W
postpones his accountability in the decision-making process. He will later admit that he

is indeed responsible for any action he freely commits.

IE
However, in the midst of his decision-making process, Raskolnikov occasionally
EV
defers his responsibility to God’s predetermined plan. For example, while taking a walk

to clear his head after the nightmare, Raskolnikov repudiates the dream, but nonetheless

seems to feel powerless to its implicit fate. Because he is actually operating within a self-
PR

fulfilling prophecy, he willingly resigns to the “fact” that he will indeed commit the

murder. He easily succumbs to God’s direction, confident that God will offer

confirmations that murder is the correct and appropriate action.

This feeling of determination and reward is confirmed during another coincidence

when he overhears the pawnbroker’s sister, Lizaveta, talking with a peddler and his wife.

The discussion reveals that Lizaveta will be out of the house the following night, leaving

Aliona home alone. Raskolnikov, willing to release his personal responsibility and

spiritual accountability, takes this as a sign from God and a confirmation of determinism.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 15

Raskolnikov, operating under fatalism, cannot ignore this direction. Knowing that the

pawnbroker will be alone at a specified time, Raskolnikov feels that it is his fate to

murder her during this window of opportunity. With the situation seemingly out of his

control, Raskolnikov returns home and enters his room “like a man condemned to death.

He had not chosen and was not capable of choosing. Yet suddenly with all his being he

felt that he no longer had any freedom of choice - that he had no alternative and that

suddenly everything had been conclusively decided” (60). Raskolnikov foresees a drastic

consequence for the murder, but feels powerless to do otherwise.

Raskolnikov is willing to succumb to this powerlessness, and an overheard

W
conversation draws him deeper into his self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthering both Nutall’s

assertion about the morality of sacrifice and Raskolnikov’s fatalistic beliefs, Raskolnikov
IE
hears a student and an officer discussing Aliona. The conversation reaches a heated point

at which the student states, “I could rob and murder that damned old woman and I assure
EV

you I would not have a twinge of conscience....This old woman’s money, which is going

to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousand, good deeds and

PR

fresh starts” (63). The Russian utilitarian concept of morality is reinforced as the student

adds, “For one life, thousands of lives saved from ruin and collapse. One death and a

hundred lives - there’s arithmetic for you” (63). If Raskolnikov needs an additional

endorsement to kill Aliona, the student provides it. The comment is one more

coincidence in the string of events supporting Raskolnikov’s fatalistic rationale for his

self-proclaimed destiny as a murderer.

However, is it rational to believe that Raskolnikov’s God would have created him

as murderer? As a fatalist, Raskolnikov would like to believe so because it would

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 16

endorse his wish to act out while absolving him of guilt. He willingly adopts a fatalistic

outlook, extending the idea of a predetermined supernatural plan to include an extreme

prescription for human action. Raskolnikov, ironically, freely accepts the notion of fate

and human powerlessness. Fatalism is defined by Hugh Rice, in the Stanford

Encyclopedia o f Philosophy, as “the view that we are powerless to do anything other that

what we actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and

metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to

causal determinism.” Due to the fact that Raskolnikov does murder, a fatalist may

propose that this action was predetermined and Raskolnikov acted in accordance with a

W
grand plan set by God. Raskolnikov, if truly guided by divinity, cannot choose otherwise

than to murder. For a fatalist, it may be possible that God destined Raskolnikov for
IE
murder. However, because Raskolnikov later accepts responsibility for his horrible

action, it seems, in retrospect, that he uses fatalism as an excuse for his cruelty.
EV

During the time that Raskolnikov is searching for spiritual signs to support his

inclination to kill Aliona, he displays a belief in fatalism. As Edward D ’Angelo explains

PR

in The Problem o f Freedom and Determinism, “A fatalist maintains that man’s desires

and choices are irrelevant and ineffective. All events are beyond human control, and

events will occur in a predetermined way regardless of what we do ... In other words, all

human effort is futile. A fatalist is a determinist; that is, he accepts the principle that

every event has a cause” (18-19). If Raskolnikov is following fatalistic beliefs at this

point, there is no option for him but to commit the murder.

For Raskolnikov, this lack of accountability allows him to believe the self-

fulfilling prophecy he creates. Unlike Hamlet, who wrestles between revenge and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 17

accountability, and Meursault, who does not even believe in guilt, Raskolnikov eagerly

sheds his personal responsibility in favor of fatalism. Fatalism carries determinism to an

extreme. Andrew Eshleman, in the Stanford Encyclopedia o f Philosophy, explains the

foundation of this extreme interpretation of determinism. Eshleman states that the

reflections of moral responsibility found in early Greek texts such as the Homeric epics

(circa 8th century BCE) “gave rise to fatalism —the view that one's future or some aspect

of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and

time —in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions

irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized.” The implication, therefore, is that

W
an individual is not responsible for his or her decisions or actions.

In Raskolnikov’s case, fatalism would posit that he is destined to murder and that
IE
without a different choice available, he is not responsible for his actions. If human
EV
outcomes are predetermined, it would seem that an individual could not be held

responsible for any action at any time, either for praise or blame. If this is true, who is

responsible? Raskolnikov would like to name God, in His omnipotence, for controlling
PR

all human action. As a murderer, if Raskolnikov seeks spiritual innocence, he must be

confident in his fatalistic beliefs. He must see an incompatible relationship between

God’s grand plan and individual human responsibility.

Eshleman addresses this incompatibility between responsibility and determinism

by classifying thinkers as being “one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal

determinism and moral responsibility —one who maintains that if causal determinism is

true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist

— one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.