Do you agree with Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment?

No, I think it is rationalization.

No – I think we ahve a recent example of that “We’re above the law” mentality in our last administration and that immoral acts are never justifiable. Most psychopaths and sociopaths think that they are exceptional…

That would justify all kinds of horrible acts. I can’t subscribe to that line of reasoning. That’s what gave rise to a disturbing legacy of human lab testing in the 20th century. “Oh but it could save lives in the end!” No. The means must justify the ends. Raskolnikov was deluded and ruthlessly axed an old lady in the head.

Great book by the way. I think it was Dostoevsky’s way of showing you that it’s possible to empathize with and relate to real rascals/scoundrels.

Yes about morality; no about there being to kinds of people.

Morality and law are invented by humans. Agreement about them is what keeps society stable. Stability is not always desirable, and it can be very useful and appropriate for people to disagree with society in order to shape it. In fact, a society where everyone agreed entirely on morality might never evolve at all.

Also, not quite the same thing, but it reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s:

”The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him.

The unreasonable man adapts the surrounding conditions to himself.

All progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Where some people might go with this suggestion, however, is to use it to justify doing harm to others, or ignoring responsibility or impact on others, which is not the same thing. One can invent one’s own morality without having it do harm. Disagreeing with society may tend to cause upset and misunderstanding, but that too is a distinct point.

And of course there are also arguments about questions such as, “Given the chance to assassinate Hitler, would you?” or “If your society requires you to do things you find immoral, and is threatening you and your loved ones unless you obey, do you comply or resist? And if you choose to resist, in what ways do you resist?”

As for there being two kinds of people, I’d qualify it by saying that being ordinary versus extraordinary are available to everyone, at least, once they see or remember the possibility of choosing to be extraordinary. It’s just that people tend to fall into ordinary habits and forget or talk each other out of extraordinary possibilities.

As a misanthrope myself, I do understand Raskolnikov’s notion of ordinary and extraordinary people at some level, but I also think that it’s just a rationalization of historical events where certain people were successful in transcending the bounds of morality. In the end, Raskolnikov discovers that even if that is true, it’s not within the individual’s control; he “mistook” himself for an extraordinary person. Sorry if that’s a spoiler, but you asked the question.

nope, though from what I remember (having read the book 20 years ago) that’s not what he said.

I do think some people are more extraordinary based on their actions and lives but they’re aren’t so just because, for no good reason