"One death, and a thousand lives in exchange--it's simple arithmetic.

"
-Raskolnikov
Raskolnikov's mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to
him in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment exemplifies the empirical view of utili
tarianism. Utilitarianism attempts to distinguish between right and wrong by me
asuring a decision based on its calculated worth. Raskolnikov appears to employ
the fundamentals of utilitarianism by pitting the negative consequences of murd
ering his old landlady against the positive benefits that her money would bestow
onto society. However, a true follower of utilitarianism would be outraged at
Raskolnikov's claim that murdering the old woman can be considered morally right
. Raskolnikov arbitrarily leaves out some necessary considerations in his moral
"equation" that do not adhere to utilitarianism. A utilitarian would argue that
Raskolnikov has not reached an acceptable solution because he has not accuratel
y solved the problem. On the other hand, a non-utilitarian would reject even th
e notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a mathematical manner.
He might contend that Raskolnikov's reasoning, and the entire theory of utilita
rianism, cannot be used to judge morality because it rejects individual rights a
nd contains no moral absolutes.
A utilitarian bases his belief upon two principles: the theory of right
actions and the theory of value. These two principles work together and serve
as criteria for whether or not a utilitarian can deem an action morally right.
First, the theory of right action argues that the morally right decision is the
one whose consequences are at least as good as any other available option . For
example, upon receiving the assignment for this paper, I could have chosen to
ignore the assignment and spend my time on something more enjoyable, or I could
have worked diligently on my paper, actually turning it in. Employing the utili
tarian principle, I would have to weigh each option and then decide which one ha
s consequences at least as good as or better than any of the other options possi
ble. But, what standard do I use to gauge the consequences in order to choose t
he best alternative?
The theory of right action does not stand alone as the only condition fo
r ethical evaluations. To measure the given alternatives, I would have to apply
the theory of value. The theory of value bases itself on the premise that pleasu
re is the only thing valuable in itself and as an end. Mill clearly states, "th
at all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves
or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain ." In my m
oral dilemma, I had to take each alternative and calculate the total amount of p
leasure that each would produce, minus the total amount of pain each alternative
would induce. So while not doing the paper might give me the most amount of im
mediate pleasure, the pain that I would incur upon receiving an F in my class wo
uld greatly reduce the amount of net pleasure. On the other hand, I might exper
ience some pain (due to boredom, frustration, etc.) from writing the paper. How
ever, this amount of pain would be outweighed by the pleasure of receiving an A
on it, thus in turn raising my GPA, making my parents happy, graduating with hon
ors, securing a six-figure salary job, marrying the perfect man, and having 2.5
kids.
Therefore, utilitarianism not concerned with just the short-term consequ
ences of the decision nor with the sole effects on the agent himself. A utilitar
ian must consider the long-term effects and the amount of pleasure or pain that
others will experience as a result of his decision. The agent cannot just consi
der his personal level of pleasure or pain. In fact, there may be cases where t
he utilitarian's right decision may cause the agent only pain. However, in acco
rdance to the greatest good for the greatest number philosophy of utilitarianism
, the decision that is morally right produces the greatest amount of net pleasur
e for everyone involved.
Raskolnikov seems to be employing utilitarianism when he justifies the m
urder of his landlady. According to Raskolnikov, he has two available options:
murdering the old woman and giving away her money to benefit society or letting
her live and watching the money waste away in a monastery when she dies of natur
al causes. Apparently, Raskolnikov has formulated an equation in which the old
woman's death has a greater positive differential between the pleasure and pain
than not murdering her. He states that the pleasure the old woman's money would
bring to the poor would outweigh the pain inflicted upon her.
Although Raskolnikov's reasoning seems to be a clear example of the util
itarian principle, in reality it simplifies utilitarianism to the point of disto
rtion. A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not shown the murder to b
e morally justifiable because Raskolnikov abstracts the situation, does not deve
lop key variables of utilitarianism, and thus has not accurately solved the prob
lem.
First, Raskolnikov does not fulfill the requirements for the theory of r
ight action. Whereas the theory of right action deems an act morally right if i
t is the best choice out of all available options, Raskolnikov simplifies the si
tuation and ignores other available options. Murdering the woman is not the onl
y possibility for Raskolnikov if he truly wants to better society. He could, for
example, steal the money which would inflict less pain on the old woman. He co
uld find alternative ways to raise money (fundraising, donations, etc.) which wo
uld cancel out any factor of pain. Both alternatives would produce a greater am
ount of net pleasure than the single, drastic option Raskolnikov has considered.
Raskolnikov has also not applied the theory of value because he has not
weighed all the consequences accurately. In measuring the level of pleasure and
pain associated with each outcome, a utilitarian must base his evaluation on the
probabilities of all likely consequences. However, Raskolnikov, in his subject
ivity of the situation, has not considered the likeliness of several possibiliti
es. Raskolnikov might be caught in the act. He might prove to be ineffective in
helping society. Mill clearly warns against using the utilitarian thought in t
rying to fix something as large and general as society . Therefore, Raskolnikov
may cause a high degree of pain with no resulting pleasure to show for it. It i
s easy to see why Raskolnikov thinks that the old woman's life is expendable. H
owever, his reasoning is not applicable towards a utilitarian definition of "mor
ally right". Only in an abstracted situation as the one Raskolnikov portrays, ca
n his simplified conclusion be considered. In reality, his reasoning leaves ou
t several elements such as numerous alternatives and unforseeable consequences,
which true utilitarian arguments do not take for granted.
The difference between utilitarian arguments, which Raskolnikov's reason
ing does reflect to some extent, and non-utilitarian arguments, is that non-util
itarian moral theories do not cancel out an individual's pain as easily. Even if
Raskolnikov could prove to the old woman that her death is the morally right de
cision according to utilitarianism, I doubt that she would go along with the pla
n. She would not be so hasty to overlook her personal pain, although it is outw
eighed by the positive consequences of her murder. A non-utilitarian would arg
ue that one cannot simply dismiss the factor of pain, even if overshadowed by a
greater amount of pleasure.
In Raskolnikov's reasoning the pain of the old woman could never compet
e with the pleasure gained by society; therefore her suffering is tossed aside.
This is because the theory of value cannot measure the value of an intangible q
uality such as life. However, a non-utilitarian would contend that the human li
fe of an individual should be valued more than any other consideration, especial
ly one as superficial as money, because once it is taken away, it is irrevocable
. They would also assert that because utilitarianism values only those things wh
ich promote pleasure, it does not value human life. Life, like pleasure, is val
uable in itself. A non-utilitarian would not look at moral dilemmas with the cal
culated objectivity that one uses when looking at a mathematical equation. To a
non-utilitarian a human life holds a tremendous amount of value, a value that c
annot be quantified into simplistic factors and then dismissed.
Another problem that a non-utilitarian might have with Raskolnikov's use
of utilitarianism is that his reasoning is not held to any moral absolutes. If
Raskolnikov could prove that an act of murder was morally acceptable through a
utilitarian equation, then anyone could calculate such heinous actions. We woul
d have mobs of people murdering their rich, old landladies because they would fe
el that they are justified, if only they donate some of the money to charity. A
narchy and a disregard for human life would ensue if everyone subscribed to Rask
olnikov's thinking. A non-utilitarian would argue that moral absolutes provide
a standard by which people can gauge the morality of their decisions. However,
in utilitarianism, there are no moral absolutes. So, who provides the standards
to make sure that people do not feel justified in committing murder? Unfortuna
tely, Mill does not make allowances for competent judges, so any practitioner of
utilitarianism must come up with his own scale to measure pleasure and pain (an
d in turn morality). As we see in the Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is not
a competent judge. Therefore, he commits an immoral act, while feeling justifie
d because he the utilitarian theory protects him.
In conclusion, utilitarianism is the most democratic of moral theories.
The greatest good for the greatest number mentality secures justice for the maj
ority but fails to provide the rights due to the individual. However, unlike ou
r democratic government, which employs a system of checks and balances to regula
te itself, utilitarianism has no set standards to deem certain acts wrong. Rask
olnikov demonstrates the mathematical objectivity of utilitarianism, although he
miscalculates somewhat in his justification of murder. In such a calculated ma
nner, personal pain and suffering are dismissed in lieu of the emphasis placed o
n monetary value. So while utilitarian would describe his formula as "the great
est good for the greatest number", a non-utilitarian would characterize it as "t
he happiness of many overshadowing the happiness of the individual".