Spencei Buuson

Noiality anu }ustice

Becembei 19, 2u12

An Analysis of Bostoevsky's !"#$% '(") #*$ +,-$(.("/,-

The final iesult, gentlemen, is that it's bettei to uo nothing! Conscious ineitia
is bettei. I'm lying because I know myself as suiely as two times two, that it
isn't ieally the unueigiounu that's bettei, but something uiffeient, altogethei
uiffeient, something that I long foi, but I'll nevei be able to finu.

While the 0nueigiounu Nan ietieats into apathy because he can't finu the solution,
Bostoevsky implies that he has founu it. Insteau of the unueigiounu, he iecommenus faith.
The 0nueigiounu Nan has given up in the face of the pioblem in fiont of him. This pioblem
is his inability to ieconcile the conflict between scientific ueteiminism anu fiee will. As
science anu technology piogiess it becomes moie anu moie uifficult to iefute the
pieuictive poweis of science, but if science is absolute anu iiiefutable then it seems to
imply fate. The moie we leain about the woilu, the moie oui paths seem pie-ueteimineu.
As the 0nueigiounu Nan puts it: "you know theie is no such thing as choice in ieality."
Nost people ignoie this fact anu continue to believe in fiee willnot because of any
iational aigument, but because humans uespeiately want to be fiee. Accoiuing to
Bostoevsky, when confionteu by stiuctuie anu iules, people iebel just to piove to
themselves that they aie inueeu fiee. Thus, the pioposeu solution to the peiils of
iationalism is iiiationalism. To the 0nueigiounu Nan this means masochism anu self-
uestiuction. Be takes pleasuie in his toothache because not seeing a uoctoi is an attempt to
be iiiational anu unpieuictable. 0nfoitunately his attempts aie futilepsychology can just
as easily explain this line of thought anu action as it can oithouoxy. The moie plausible
solution is the one offeieu by Bostoevsky. Faith is the polai opposite of iationalism. uou
cannot be pioveu anu theie can be no logical explanation of ieligion.
The ieason that the 0nueigiounu Nan's pioblem is inueeu a pioblem is because of
the implications of scientific ueteiminism. Fiist, anu most obviously, if science is
ueteiministic then fieewill is impossible. If youi choice coulu have been known befoiehanu
than it wasn't ieally youi choice to begin with. It must have been ueteimineu by something
else. Without fieewill moiality also effectively ceases to exist. It is impossible to piaise oi
blame someone when they ieally hau no choice in the mattei. It uoesn't mattei which
actions aie seen as valuable if those actions cannot be affecteu. Inuiviuualism is equally
affecteu. A peison is uefineu by his choices anu if he ieally has no choice than theie is no
"him" to begin with; "foi what is a man without uesiies, without fiee will anu without
choice, if not a stop in an oigan." It is easy to see why the 0nueigiounu Nan stiuggles with
this iuea. Be can't iefute the piemise (scientific ueteiminism), but he finus it almost equally
impossible to accept the conclusions. No sane peison wants to be an "oigan-stop" in a
woilu uevoiu of moiality anu being foiceu to cope with this ieality uiives him insane.
The 0nueigiounu Nan aigues that man's fiee choice "is that veiy 'most
auvantageous auvantage' which we have oveilookeu, which comes unuei no classification
anu against which all systems anu theoiies aie continually being shatteieu to atoms." Bis
aigument is that man's choice is beyonu the laws of natuie anu completely unpieuictable
to the extent that he chooses to behave iiiationally. Be claims that if he's wiong anu "if
theie ieally is some uay uiscoveieu a foimula foi all oui uesiies anu capiices. then, most
likely, man will at once cease to feel uesiie" anu "be tiansfoimeu fiom a human being into
an oigan-stop."
I ieject this account on two bases. Fiist, because if one-uay man uiscoveis a "foimula
foi all oui uesiies" then he won't be "tiansfoimeu" into an oigan-stop; he will have always
been an oigan-stop anu just not known it. While it is veiy uifficult to uefinitively piove fiee
will, fate can easily be pioveu by cieating such a "foimula." Seconu, his aigument is baseu
on the belief that man isn't man without fiee will. Who's to say that theie is anything wiong
with being an "oigan-stop." The 0nueigiounu Nan's solution is to "choose what is contiaiy
to one's own inteiests" in oiuei to piactice anu piove his fiee will. Be thinks that
masochism is unpieuictable, but it isn't anu it is impossible to act against "ones own
inteiests". What he is ieally uoing ie-evaluating his inteiests anu placing his supposeu
fieeuom above self-pieseivation. This uoesn't make him any less of an oigan-stop; it just
makes the oigan he's pait of a little moie complicateu.
Life uoes not iequiie faith as supplement anu hope. This is fiist because the
Beisenbeig unceitainty piinciple uispioves fate. As science piogiesses, it becomes moie
anu moie appaient that the univeise contains an inheient ianuomness. Even if you ignoie
this fact, it is possible to live without fiee will. While the thought of natuie contiolling youi
actions can be scaiy, it can also be a comfoit. It can take the blame off youi shoulueis if you
sciew up anu make it easiei to tiy again. The 0nueigiounu Nan says that humans will uo
peiveise things just to piove theii own fiee will, but if this weie absolutely tiue, than
eveiyone woulu live like him. Bis explanation that the iest of the woilu is stupiu is not a
justification foi his lifestyle, oi a ieason why anyone else woulu act the way he uoes.

Woiks Citeu

Bostoyevsky, Fyouoi, anu Anuiew R. NacAnuiew. Notes fiom unueigiounu, White nights,
the uieam of a iiuiculous man, anu selections fiom the Bouse of the ueau. New Yoik:
New Ameiican Libiaiy, 1961. Piint.