{"id":784,"date":"2019-05-15T12:16:05","date_gmt":"2019-05-15T20:16:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/?p=784"},"modified":"2019-05-16T13:08:15","modified_gmt":"2019-05-16T21:08:15","slug":"golden-rule-versus-gilded-rule-the-hobbesian-distortion-in-dostoevskys-crime-and-punishment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/golden-rule-versus-gilded-rule-the-hobbesian-distortion-in-dostoevskys-crime-and-punishment\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cGolden Rule\u201d versus \u201cGilded Rule\u201d: The Hobbesian Distortion in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Ashley Riley<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a first glance, Thomas Hobbes\u2019 use\nof the inverted \u201cGolden Rule\u201d\nprovides a compelling argument for the operation of society, primarily in the\nsense that it encourages everyone to be a considerate citizen. Treating others\nthe way that they want to be treated, or avoiding the opposite, indeed feels\nlike a fundamental principle, as Hobbes describes it to be in Chapter XIV of\nhis Leviathan<\/em>. In theory, the demand for policing and government\nintervention should be unnecessary if everyone simply did right by each other.\nRegardless whether humans are as innately politically inclined as Aristotle\nfamously describes, or selfishly animalistic as Hobbes argues, this would seem\nto be a satisfactory rule of thumb to abide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this claim may not speak to\nour humanity beyond a superficial level. If human beings are truly the despondent\ncreatures that Hobbes claims we are, meaning that we are unable to live happily\nand peacefully without the intervention of a Leviathan, then this simple\nframework would prove to be insufficient. Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and\nPunishment <\/em>demonstrates this to be the case. Although Crime and\nPunishment <\/em>illustrates the consequences for when this law is broken from a\nHobbesian perspective, it simultaneously makes the case that abiding by this\nlaw ultimately leads to the downfall of society as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before studying in greater detail the\neffect of this law in the novel, it is necessary to first dissect this rule in\nits original biblical context, and how it is used within Hobbes\u2019 Leviathan <\/em>more\nvividly. What we understand today as the \u201cGolden Rule\u201d first appears in Matthew 7:12, when\nJesus states, \u201cDo to others as you would have them do to you.\u201d This\nencapsulates the idea that one must use the self as a guide to living ethically\namong one\u2019s peers, and within a society as a whole. Notably, Hobbes includes the\ntotal inverse of this law within his Leviathan<\/em>. At first glance, this\nappears to be the very same rule; however, there is a striking difference in\nits effect. Although both versions are general rules, they require reflection\nupon one\u2019s particular self, which ultimately will provide a guide for how one\nwill treat another. In order to understand this rule, one has to think about\noneself, and one\u2019s particularity in relation to others. This is where the two\nphilosophies diverge: whereas the original rule is positive, in the sense that\nhuman action tends to matter more than inaction, Hobbes\u2019 distortion is far less\nmorally demanding. What matters most in the original perspective are the things\nthat you do, whereas Hobbes suggests that the Leviathan instead should be\nresponsible for action, and therefore that there is peace in passivity (e.g. as\nin do not <\/em>kill, do not<\/em>\nsteal, etc). This is the crux of Hobbes\u2019 pessimistic attitude towards mankind. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Hobbes\u2019 first fundamental law\nof nature is \u201cto seek peace and follow it\u201d (99), this is not the same as Jesus\u2019\nintent in his sermon on the mount. Hobbes follows this law with another\nproclamation, claiming \u201c[we must do] by all means what we can do to defend\nourselves\u201d (99). This seems contradictory, even within Hobbes\u2019 own reasoning;\nif humans truly are as animalistic as he describes us to be, then peace can\neasily be sacrificed for the sake of self preservation (98). Even he seems to\nrealize this contradiction, arguing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself\u2026 <\/em>This is the law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. <\/em>And that law of all men, What you do not want done to you, do not do to another<\/em>. (99)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

By\ndistorting this biblical law and defining it as a rule of nature, it appears as\nthough Hobbes himself is trying to be Christlike. His Leviathan <\/em>is not\nonly what he believes to be an \u201chonest\u201d analysis of man, but he also provides\nus with a way to react to these flaws. Instead of trying to fight our true\nnature, we can embrace it; thus, Hobbes\u2019 Leviathan <\/em>acts as a \u201cnew\nBible,\u201d beginning with a distorted \u201cGolden Rule,\u201d\nor a first rule of living. If he is correct, then it seems as though mankind\nhas a more stable path to follow; but if he is wrong, which Crime and\nPunishment  <\/em>proves to be the case,\nthen there are severe consequences to following his advice. Both texts\nillustrate the dystopia that would result in humanity\u2019s acceptance of this\nphilosophy, placing the tragic consequences at the forefront for us to observe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As already stated, Crime and\nPunishment<\/em> argues against Hobbes\u2019 \u201cGolden Rule\u201d to an inverted degree. While Crime\nand Punishment <\/em> also offers a story\nof a main character attempting to challenge an unjust society, Raskolnikov\nsimultaneously encompasses and <\/em>defies\nHobbes\u2019 philosophies. Similar to Hobbes\u2019\naccount of man, Raskolnikov validates the philosopher\u2019s beliefs by arguing that\n\u201cliving souls demand life . . . are suspicious . . . [and] are reactionary!\u201d\n(306-7). However, Raskolnikov additionally claims, \u201cyou can\u2019t leap over nature\nby logic alone,\u201d and this directly fights against Hobbes\u2019 argument (307). While\nthe philosopher claims that it is \u201creason\u201d and the desire for \u201cpeace\u201d that\nreconcile our dark nature (9; 97), Raskolnikov unravels this with his complex\nnature. He also defies Hobbes\u2019 fundamental law of nature by committing his\ngruesome crimes. He unjustly does on to others what he would not want done upon\nhimself, so he is deserving of the punishment bestowed upon him when the\nauthorities intervene. Raskolnikov also defies Hobbes\u2019 caricature of man with\nhis constant acts of kindness and charity (282-91), and therefore in this\nsense, occasionally exhibits the tendencies of the original \u201cGolden Rule.\u201d All at once, Raskolnikov is the\nembodiment, and rejection of Hobbes\u2019 principles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By becoming a self-proclaimed\ndeliverer of \u201cjustice,\u201d\nRaskolnikov takes on arguably the most Hobbesian role within the text.\nBelieving that his actions were not only \u201cpreordained\u201d (82), but more\nprovocatively, his \u201cduty<\/em>\u201d<\/em> (310), Raskolnikov imposes the role\nof the Leviathan upon himself for the sake of maintaining justice within his\nown society. In Part Three of the novel, he defends this moral reasoning to his\nfriend, Razumikhin; in greater detail, he claims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everyone is divided into two\ncategories, the \u2018ordinary\u2019 and the \u2018extraordinary.\u2019 Ordinary people should live\na life of obedience and do not have the right to overstep the law, because, you\nsee, they are ordinary. But extraordinary people have the right to carry out\nall manner of crimes and to break the law as they please, all because they are\nextraordinary<\/em>. (310; emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding\nhimself as a member of this extraordinary fraction of society, Raskolnikov\nreveals his Napoleonic complex, delivering what he believes is \u201ctrue justice\u201d\nwithin his own community (81). He implicitly argues that \u201cI didn\u2019t murder a\nperson . . . I murdered a principle!\u201d (329), which highlights a poignant flaw within Hobbes\u2019 Leviathan <\/em>and\nhis distorted rule: although Raskolnikov looks inwards at his own particularity\nand compares it to Alyona Ivanovna\u2019s, he is mistaken in deciding that they are\nnot equals. Eventually, he understands this miscalculation, and that in\nactuality, he is equally as sinister because of his actions. In reflection\ntowards the end of the novel, the narrator claims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He had managed to go through with the\nmurder thanks to his frivolous and craven character, which, moreover, had been\nirritated by hardship and failure. In reply to the question of what exactly had\nprompted him to turn himself in, he answered frankly: heartfelt remorse<\/em>.\nThere was something almost rude about it all. (641; emphasis added) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although\nhe eliminates those he considers unworthy within the society, he realizes by\nthe end of the novel that he is just as terrible as those he condemns,\nespecially in light of his unjust murder of Alyona\u2019s innocent sister, Lizaveta\n(98). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though the novel presents a dark\nargument against the innately good nature of humanity, Crime and Punishment  <\/em>is redeemed by having two other Christlike\nfigures: Sonya and Dunya. Both strong women in struggling circumstances, they\ndrive the ethical standards of the novel upward in two ways: the first being\ntheir devotion to morality, and the second being their self-sacrifice for those\nwho they care most about. Sonya particularly plays a critical role, due both to\nher impact and due to the moral philosophies within the novel. Her significance\nis even highlighted by Raskolnikov\u2019s mother, Pulkheria Alexandrovna, who says\nof her, \u201cI have this premonition, Dunya. You won\u2019t believe me, but the moment\nshe came in it occurred to me that this is the crux of it all\u201d (288). Therefore,\nher power within this novel cannot be denied. Sonya\u2019s devotion to goodness and\nnobility provide Raskolnikov with a lens to observe how he was flawed in his\nreasoning, and even offers him potential redemption. When Raskolnikov confesses\nto Sonya about the details of his crime, denouncing Alyona Ivanovna as nothing\nmore than a \u201clouse . . . a useless, foul, noxious louse,\u201d Sonya retorts by\nsaying \u201c[she was] a human being<\/em>! Not a louse!\u201d (500 emphasis added). It\nis Sonya<\/em> who prompts Raskolnikov to consider whether he indeed had the\n\u201cright to murder\u201d (504), and this is when Raskolnikov\u2019s transformation, or \u201cconversion,\u201d begins to develop. Her significance\npeaks when she argues, \u201caccept suffering and through suffering redeem\nyourself\u2014this is what you must do\u201d (505). This is the very crux of the novel\u2019s\nmoral message. The Christian argument that suffering is more noble than causing\nharm to others, and is also redemptive to those who have done wrong, reconciles\nthe tragic circumstances that this Hobbesian society enforces upon its\ncharacters. Sonya reveals to Raskolnikov that being extraordinary does not\nequate to being free from accountability, and that every person should take\nmoral responsibility for themselves, and for each other. Therefore, this is the\npurest application of Jesus\u2019 original Golden Rule; instead of living in a world\nwhere there is a \u201cwar of every man against every man\u201d (Hobbes 95), people must\novercome this dark part of human nature, and question if it really exists in\nthe capacity which Hobbes describes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Hobbes nobly condones the idea\nthat people should treat each other with mutual respect for the very sake of\npeace, his greater argument offers a distorted version of man. The subject of\nhis entire text argues that human beings are not capable of living in peace\namong each other without sacrificing their own freedom, but this does not prove\nto be successful in Crime and Punishment <\/em>. If we are to study these laws\nwith the same suspicion of mankind\u2019s capacity as Hobbes possesses, then this\nappears to be a fragile system, indefensible against those who decide to\nchallenge it. Although the Leviathan exists to carry out punishment to those\nwho violate these laws, it only takes one person to disobey for the whole\nsystem to be at risk, as Raskolnikov illustrates in Crime and Punishment . <\/em>Regardless\nof the use of Hobbes\u2019 principle however, both texts arrive at the same\nconclusion: that human beings are far more complex than Hobbes\u2019 theory and \u201csolution\u201d to society\u2019s problem implies. While Hobbes\u2019 own Leviathan<\/em>\nsuggests that superficial selfishness is enough to satisfy the needs and\ndesires of mankind, it produces in Crime and Punishment <\/em> the Raskolnikov\/Napoleon effect, which is\ndangerous because it encourages extremist efforts, which are justified by a\ndistorted guise that it is for the benefit of society. Where Hobbes\u2019 distorted\nlaw of nature prompts inaction, the original \u201cGolden Rule\u201d demands moral action, encouraging\neach person to think about their particulars in relation with their fellow man.\nWhat matters are the things that you do, not simply that you did not kill, or\ndid not steal. This is the unifying key that the societies of both texts\nultimately lack. Only in the Christlike figures do we see this reconciliation,\nand so this is the tragedy that the Leviathan<\/em> and Crime and\nPunishment <\/em> both ultimately share.\nAlthough the characters of Dostoevsky’s novel operate within terribly flawed\nsocieties, they are still successful in abiding by noble moral philosophies.\nThey provide an argument for the innate goodness of mankind that Hobbes\nblatantly disregards from being true, and this is where the philosopher is most\ndeeply flawed in his analysis of human nature and politics.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Works Cited<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment.<\/em> 1866. Translated and edited by Oliver Ready, Penguin Classics, 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan:\nParts I and II<\/em>. 1651.\nEdited by A.P Martinich, and Brian Battiste, Broadview, 2005. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Ashley Riley At a first glance, Thomas Hobbes\u2019 use of the inverted \u201cGolden Rule\u201d provides a compelling argument for the operation of society, primarily in the sense that it … Continue reading “\u201cGolden Rule\u201d versus \u201cGilded Rule\u201d: The Hobbesian Distortion in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":333,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2019-issue","category-essays"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/333"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=784"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":786,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/784\/revisions\/786"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.viu.ca\/compassrose\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}