tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post4120204269054532626..comments2009-12-15T09:35:32.509-08:00Comments on Existentialism @ Rhodes: Murder's Benefit: A Test of MoralityDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post-59771390008814396812009-09-27T19:11:23.623-07:002009-09-27T19:11:23.623-07:00I believe Nietzsche would view Raskolnikov in a ma...I believe Nietzsche would view Raskolnikov in a manner similar to how he viewed Socrates in "Twilight of the Idols," "there was but one choice: either to perish or--to be absurdly rational." Raskolnikov attempted to test his rationality, as his social situation was driving him insane. He merely proved that he was not the Ubermensch he was attempting to be, as somehow above the moral norms of society in which he was raised. As Sam pointed out, a lawless environment would have us cling to a different justice than in a peaceful society, to not feel pangs of guilt when killing for survival. Raskolnikov himself recognizes the inherent foolishness and hardheartedness of killing two old women for almost nothing, that rationality has its limits.K Kiferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13557636332006728382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post-32279900563788418562009-09-27T16:30:18.301-07:002009-09-27T16:30:18.301-07:00I hate to be that guy to bring up the death penalt...I hate to be that guy to bring up the death penalty, but we do have a comment quota. Is murder something that it is established as morally apprehensible when our government commits murder somewhat regularly, both domestically and at war? So I don't think there is such an established morality, rather it seems to be a fluctuating purveyor of control to those who hold power over us. Our country's government has administered to us voluminous, concrete, and codified laws, and yet there is a substantial amount of acceptable murder that occurs. So, in a lawless environment, I'm led to believe that murder would have an even smaller impression on our morality.Sam Tuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15860723240068487784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post-27267021432391886792009-09-27T11:54:06.157-07:002009-09-27T11:54:06.157-07:00I do not think that Nietzsche would view Raskolnik...I do not think that Nietzsche would view Raskolnikov as an entirely superior being. I think that to Nietzsche, one who is “superior” rises above all that is entailed in slavish morality. That person would feel justified in committing crimes and acts that make him or her more powerful. To commit murder defies the collective view of morality, and to feel guilt would be seen, to Nietzsche, as the slavish morale “haunting” Raskolnikov. Therefore he can never be an entirely “superior” being by relating to the popular conception of morality.jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009666364711238599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post-89860372019956080402009-09-26T21:22:08.405-07:002009-09-26T21:22:08.405-07:00I suspect Nietzsche would view Raskolnikov disfavo...I suspect Nietzsche would view Raskolnikov disfavorably, because even though he acts contrary to the dictates of slave morality he still binds himself to its judgements. For Nietzsche, there seems to be little room for the ubermensch (sp?) to experience something so slavish as guilt. In essence, it seems as though Nietzsche could construe Rashkolnikov's action as one possilby consistent with an ubermensch's action (providing that act's motive wasn't one of fear or some other 'slavish' quality), but he would still view Dostoevsky's protagonist as one who remain a submensch (it's fun making up words =p)--someone who has yet to transcend the existing unnatural moral status quo-- if he experiences guilt.B Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896899738793941282noreply@blogger.com