A question of Morality: A reflection on The Brothers Karamazov
I found that this book is philosophically dense, emotionally evocative and thought provoking. And it is a page turner in addition to being a whodunnit!. Now one of the things I love about this book and of other Dostoevsky books that I have read, is the brilliant characterisation. The brothers in the title refer to Dmitri Fyodorovich (Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri Fyodorovich) the eldest, Ivan Fyodorovich (Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka), and Alexie Fyodorovich (Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka), the youngest. Alexie is frequently referred to as Alyosha and Alyoshka throughout the book. The major conflict in the book is the tension existing between Dmitri Fyodorovich and his father Fyodor Pavlovich as a result of a love triangle between them and Grushenka; and also due to money matters. There is also something of a love triangle involving Dmitri, Ivan and Dmitri’s fiance Katerina. Now Fyodor is somewhat of a colourful character, to say the least. He is a landowner with a particular reputation of being a “muddleheaded madcap” (but not stupid) and a sensualist. He was quite notorious as a husband and a father. His first wife got fed up and ran away with someone else, abandoning the three-year-old Mitya, while his second wife died soon after giving birth to Ivan and Alyosha. He was known to openly engage in orgies with other women in his home even when his wife was present. As a father, Fyodor promptly forgot about the existence of his sons, both after his first wife left him and when his second wife died. In fact, it was because of a faithful servant Grigory taking care of Mitya, that he didn’t starve and had clothes on his body… Ivan and Alyosha were also taken care of by Grigory, but they were later taken in by distant relatives of their mother’s benefactress. A few lines about the benefactress’ actions after their mom died: “They say that the moment she saw him, without any explanations, she at once delivered him two good, resounding slaps and jerked him three times by his forelock; then, without adding a word, she made straight for the cottage and the two boys. Seeing at a glance that they were unwashed and in dirty shirts, she gave one more slap to Grigory himself and announced to him that she was taking both children home with her, then carried them outside just as they were, wrapped them in a plaid, put them in the carriage, and took them to her own town.” (just included these lines because I think it is hilarious). As a result, both Ivan and Alyosha received some amount of care and education, unlike Mitya who was transferred from one place to another with his education remaining incomplete. When the action starts, we come to know that Mitya is back in the village, demanding his father should give him his money left by his mother. Here it is to be noted that his first wife had money, while his second did not. Therefore, Mitya has grown up with expectations of getting his mother’s money. Now Ivan is also in town, visiting Fyodor, while Alyosha is a novice in the village monastery. There he has grown closer to the elder Zosima, who is his greatest friend and guide at this point. Zosima’s health is declining, and he may die soon. Now, Mitya has another complication in his life. He has fallen in love with a woman called Grushenka, who is known to be the merchant Samsonov’s kept woman while being engaged to another woman called Katerina. Mitya’s father Fyodor is also in love with Grushenka and is actively pursuing her for her hand in marriage. And Ivan is in love with Katerina. When Mitya is first introduced, he seems to be an irresponsible, passionate wastrel lacking impulse control. However, as I got to know him better, he came across as someone who is self aware enough to know his own faults and issues and wants to do better. Initially, he doesn’t come across as someone I would be able to respect much, but he turns out to be a complex human being with his heart in the right place. In the first scene where Grushenka is introduced, she comes across as this typical “vampish” other woman who we later get to know as this wonderfully complex woman who has her own thoughts and agency. This is one of the things I love about this book: the characters feel like real living, breathing people I care about. Another character worth mentioning is the lackey Smerdyakov, who is rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Fyodor and lives as the cook in the house. He is sly, manipulative and always tries to make people believe he is a fool while trying to outsmart them in the meanwhile. As the action progresses, simmering tensions start to build up and slowly lead to a boiling point, culminating in a gruesome murder.
Some of the themes explored in the book are the conflict of faith (or a lack thereof) and the question of morality and free will. This is portrayed by the contrasting aspects of faith and unbelief in the persons of Alyosha and Ivan, Zosima and the Inquisitor. In the tavern conversation in the first half of the book, Ivan opens up to Alyosha and tries to explain to his “little brother” his beliefs. Very endearingly he tells him that “I want to get close to you, Alyosha, because I have no friends. I want to try.” He explains that it’s impossible for him to believe a merciful, benevolent God can create this world with all its sufferings. Ivan refuses to accept that all sinners with their “villainy” and “animal cruelty” are ever redeemable. He says: "Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth.” He posits that the established religious order is corrupt and no longer serves God, but the devil, through the allegory of the Inquisitor (it is a long story that I am not repeating here). He further goes on to say that mankind in general cannot deal with free will and free conscience; they need someone to tell them what is right and what needs to be done, which is what established religions provide them with. So, as there is no God and no life after death, he says that, ‘If there is no immortality of the soul, then there is no virtue, and therefore everything is permitted.’ Now this tavern conversation has left quite an impression on me since I, too, do not believe in the existence of any God, singular or plural and a lot of what Ivan says also resonates with me. However, I have never thought that there is any connection between the existence of God, virtue and morality. I do understand Ivan’s point even though I do not agree with it. I wonder what do people who believe in God think of morality? Is morality contingent on the need for being virtuous? I believe morality should be unconditional and not dependent on the necessity of being virtuous. Anyways I loved that this book made me think so much.
The ending of the book is bittersweet to say the least. The book is well-paced right till the end. However, there are parts (just a few) of the book where it feels as if it’s slightly going on a side track. To reiterate, I loved this book and it is now one of my favourites. I will definitely reread it in the future.
Glad to weigh in on it as I read the book earlier this year. There are many wrinkles to Karamazov, and I could really only begin to scratch the surface but here are some thoughts.
To your question of the tavern scene and the need to be virtuous. I am not sure that this is even a settled debate amongst Christians. For example many Protestants tend toward the doctrine of “salvation through faith alone” while it is an older and more Catholic framing of the issue to say that salvation is tied to acts. Still others claim it is a semantic argument and that Christians are saved by their acceptance of Christ and simultaneously are called to good deeds thereafter.
Now as for Ivan’s assertion about immortality of the soul being bound to the concept of virtue, I am not sure I can agree with this either. Few if any persons on earth would agree with his conclusion that “all things are permitted” just because immortality is taken off the table. This is something of a reference to the Hobbesean “Natural Law” issues, in which Hobbes and other philosophers posit that man forfeits his “right to all things” in a bargain with other men, to preserve his own most basic of rights from being violated.
I think there is significant material of interest here for anyone to ponder, regardless of their religious belief or lack thereof. I will also say however that Dostoyevsky’s major works, taken together, are a powerful argument for Christianity. Specifically Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment seem to elucidate a set of values that can be appreciated by the irreligious, but also stand in strong contrast to the secular self-justifications that were predominant in the time and place Dostoyevsky wrote.
Yes, I can understand the thought process behind Ivan’s assertion, but don’t agree with it. As far as I can understand, his assertion probably arises from an inability to reconcile his difficulty to believe absolutely in the existence of the divine when considered against sufferings, cruelty, etc prevalent in the world. This type of existential uncertainty can lead to certain degree of maybe fear and frustration that can lead to such kind of nihilistic outlook. Anyway, this is how it seems to me.
Now I do not have much knowledge of Christianity, but as you said, I did feel that this work advocates for Christianity. Especially if we consider this quote: “What matter that he now rebels everywhere against our power, and takes pride in this rebellion? The pride of a child and a schoolboy! They are little children, who rebel in class and drive out the teacher. But there will also come an end to the children’s delight, and it will cost them dearly. They will tear down the temples and drench the earth with blood. But finally the foolish children will understand that although they are rebels, they are feeble rebels, who cannot endure their own rebellion. Pouring out their foolish tears, they will finally acknowledge that he who created them rebels no doubt intended to laugh at them.” Even though these are just Ivan’s words, it does feel that even the author probably feels similarly. These words also bring out the degree of conflict Ivan’s in.