Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Impressions of Russian Literature - VI
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
making use of the means. Suppose, for example, that
a man wishes the good of his fellow-citizens, and can
arrive at his end only by removing a single man (it may
be one who is infected with a contagious disease, or a
tyrant), then his act is deserving of honor, if of two
evils — one or the other of which must necessarily be
incurred — he chooses the lesser. The objection which
lies near to this, that he cannot foresee the results of
his act, signifies nothing, because the morality depends
upon the intent and not upon the result. In our daily
life no one entertains any doubt as to the soundness of
the principle; we are quite familiar with the idea that
there are no absolute duties. Society teaches: Thou
must not kill, but adds: Except where your fatherland
(the good end) demands it, for then it becomes not only
allowable, but a duty, to kill the largest possible number
of enemies. Society teaches: It is a bad act to cut off
the arms or legs of another, but adds: when the
physician amputates an arm or a leg to save the life of the
sick or wounded, then the good end justifies the means.
In order that the principle shall be applicable, the
following conditions must be fulfilled: The end must be
good. The end must be such that it cannot be attained
by any other means than those which inflict the pain,
nor even by means which inflict less pain than those
which are employed. — The suffering which is used as a
means must be less than that which would exist without
the use of the means. — With regard to all these points,
the typical Russian terrorist, before as well as after his
onslaught upon the course of events, would be without
any concern whatever. Why, then, was Raskolnikof not
so also?
Although Dostoyevski undoubtedly was not in the
least degree partial to political terrorists, since even
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
