As Dave would say, Poor Raskolnikov...

Wow, I forgot how much I write when I get into the swing of things. Well, introductions are over, so hopefully this part should be shorter and thus more favorable to all of us with shorter attention spans.

HAHA, so much for the short idea. I'm actually writing this segment after I've finished my main thought. This one is still quite a bit to read, so sorry to those who are looking for a quick read!

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!"
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Ah, Dostoevsky. As many of you know I like to read, and Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors. The Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky's last novel, for he passed away before making any more. In fact, this novel was supposed to be the first part of a trilogy, yet due to his passing the world will never know more...

Well, this all matters since I just recently finished Crime and Punishment, another one of Dostoevsky's novels. Crime and Punishment is probably more famous than Brothers, but I still like both. I don't think I liked Crime and Punishment since I put it down twice and thus read it over the span of all three quarters (I stopped each quarter when midterms started haha).

This quote is actually one of the central issues that Dostoevsky presents in Crime and Punishment, which is why it is on my mind currently. Even though it is not the same novel, Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, constantly struggles with this idea. His landlady, some old woman that is constantly abusing the tenants, is not liked by anybody do to her manipulative dealings and interest rates. Thus, Raskolnikov is presented with a choice: Should he kill the landlady and thus make life easier for everyone, or let the woman continue to abuse the vast amount of people under her?

In order to not ruin the ending just in case if anyone does read it (I know how much everyone lovessssss Russian literature haha), I won't say what he does. Yet, either way Dostoevsky presents us with an interesting situation. Is it ethically right to kill one person in order to save many others?

Just for those of us who are sticklers to definitions, I am not referring to a person sacrificing themselves, which means a voluntary death. I am specifically referencing someone murdering another.

This is always an interesting dilemma, and if I remember correctly back to Ethics class was Wessling, this is talked about as Chop Up Chuck. Basically, we have three victims that are all going to die if they don't receive a certain body part. Luckily, Chuck has all these body parts available, and if we thus chopped up Chuck, we would be able to save three people in return for his one life.

Depending on your ethical stance, there are different views to take on this situation. For those that are Consequentialists, even though there could be a horribly lot more said, they roughly believe that the ends justifies the means (For those of who took AP Euro, yes this is a central idea and quote from the Prince). Thus, it would be okay to kill Chuck, for by killing him you would be able to save three people. Remember, Chuck is not sacrificing himself, but is being murdered in this hypothetical.

Some people have responded by mentioning that it doesn't seem worth it just to kill Chuck to save three people. Yet, when does it become worth it, then? 10? 100? 1000000? Are we really able to measure how many lives we are able to save before we are allowed to kill somebody to save them? Consequentialists of course believe any number greater than two would make it worth it, even though a difference between 2 and 1000000 sounds quite significant...

Now what about the person we're killing, some may ask. What if it's some old man that just has a few days to live, yet if he's not killed the others are going to die before he does. This seems somewhat more justifiable at first glance, but Iono... The thing is, whether or not you save 2 or 1000000, this situation still involves murder of an innocent person. Those with very conservative ethics would say no, no matter how many people you would save, killing Chuck is wrong and thus should not be done.

Yet, the truly gray area comes to the standing of Chuck. Now, what if Chuck truly is not an innocent person, but a mass murderer? The people that you save would not be with Chuck's body parts, so to say, but by preventing others from dying. Would it then be ethical to kill Chuck, even if it is killing?

Most people at this point would say it is ethical to kill Chuck, for you would be able to save so many lives by eliminating a threat. At this point, I would agree, even though it would mean the killing of Chuck, and thus the ending of his life, which is something to be taken quite seriously...

Yet, the question that many of you are probably wondering is when does a person forfeit the right to life? Of course, it is thought to be reasonable to kill Chuck in the most recent situation makes sense since so many lives would be saved. Yet, that could be said of the initial situation as well, for killing Chuck would save tons of lives as well. There must be a reason why the most recent case makes sense over the initial case, or that there may really be no difference between them.

I honestly believe that there is a difference between them, so there must be a reason why it is ok to kill Chuck in one situation and not the other. Even though I don't believe I've found a clear cut answer yet, the best answer I can think of dates back to Junior year. For all my Valley friends, you may remember the days during Spring where we all had to dress up for debates. Even though I was definitely not a fan of mine and thus tried to not remember much about these debates in general, one of Anna-kay's points stands out in my head. If I remember correctly, Anna-kay's debate was about whether or not capital punishment is ethical or not, and she was arguing for it. Eventually, Anna-kay hit with one point that stuck out to me; "People naturally have a right to life. Yet, when people interfere on other people's right, they forfeit their own."

Now, even though Anna-kay said it and she is very smart, this does not have to be true simply because it sounds good. Yet, it seems to make sense, or at least to me. This view does imply an innocence that everybody has until they interfere with another's right to life. Thus, it would fit that those who infringe on the rights of others would lose the ability to infringe upon others if stopped. Of course, there are other ways to stop this infringement, such as life imprisonment (possibly), but that can be argued another time...

If we look back at my original thought of when it would be appropriate to kill Chuck and keep Anna-kay's point in mind, it would mean that it would be okay to kill Chuck before he kills others, but not when his body can be used to save others. Why? Simply because Chuck is an innocent person, and thus still possesses his right to life. If we are ethically consistent, it would be wrong to kill Chuck simply because there is no given reason why he should forfeit his right to life. True, it might be for the "greater good numerically", but would it be right..?

These ethical dilemmas are appropriately called dilemmas since there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer. I mean, these debates wouldn't really exist if the answer was extremely simple, yes? Well, people would probably still find some way to argue over it, yet it wouldn't matter as much whether or not it is true, such as Bertrand Russel arguing whether or not 1+1=2. But, since life is such an important thing, this debate is something that is quite significant, and thus why Dostoevsky presents it as an idea in both of his novels that I have mentioned. Usually, an answer is not as clear cut as the examples I have presented. If we look back to my very first example, Raskolnikov is presented with the idea of killing a landlady that is abusing the poor. Yet, with these abuses of the poor, has she sacrificed her right to life and thus it would be appropriate to murder her? On one hand it would seem to make sense, for many poor peasants would hopefully be able to survive instead of being swindled out of all their money. On the other hand are this woman's acts so atrocious that she truly has sacrificed her right to life? I would like to be able to leave you with a clear answer, but the purpose of this blog is an outlet for my thoughts. In clearer terms: I don't know. Both sides seem to make sense, yet killing someone is a very big act. If one were wrong either way (killing a non-innocent person infringing on the right to life of others vs. killing an innocent person who was not infringing on the rights of others), a very grave mistake would be made...

Well, I believe that I am going to leave any readers with this sort of inconclusiveness that I am myself am experiencing. Even though this is somewhat of a depressing ending, I know, it is something that I used to think about quite a bit. I feel like this is something that I used to think about quite a bit, but... Iono, now just writing this all out seems different somehow... Like something's changed from before, but I'm not exactly sure how. Well, to whoever actually read all the way through to get here, thanks for listening, and good night...