Crime and Punishment as it relates to my big question

As far as I can deduce, Dostoevsky answers this question with a yes. Sonya, for example, is forced to foresake her morals and obtain a yellow passport to help herself and her family survive. Her innocence is corrupted, yet she still obtains a sense of purity in that she is devout in beliefs and in her relationships to those she loves. It seems that one will do everything in their power to help ensure the comfort of those they love, even if it means the corruption of themselves. Raskolnikov, however, has trouble with this predicament. He is the recipient of many acts of kindness and compassion from those that love him, and he cannot understand the rationale involved in such decisions. He recognizes that he does not deserve their love, and is frustrated that they continue to stand by him even if it is not in their best interest in a moral-preserving sense or any other for that matter. This is completely irrational, and Rodya believes throughout most of the novel that most people should merely leave him alone. Yet he finally changes his perspective at the end of the novel when he finds love. I think that it is then that he understands why everyone has stood by him for so long, and loses some of his rationality for the sake of some sometimes-irrational emotions such as compassion. Sometimes people must sacrifice morals for those they love, for love is the binding glue that keeps us sane and preserves out will to continue living.

Henry IV Response

Upon further consideration of my big questions, it seems that I am asking this:
In the face of adversity, is it ever necessary to throw out morals and ethics for the sake of survival??


In Henry IV, Falstaff does just this in Act 5 of the play. He believes that honor is merely a word, and that it certainly shouldn't taint his determination for survival. With this frame of mind he plays dead to avoid death and claims killing Hotspur to further his own wellbeing. Falstaff's forsaken morals never stood a chance in adversity, let alone in times of peace and tranquility. But is Falstaff better off by doing this? His immoral lifestyle certainly keeps him alive, it exclusively looks after him and him alone, but it seems little else. Falstaff sacrifices respect and dignity by living in deceit and indulging himself in whatever way he deems fit, i.e. eating, drinking, and as a result lives seemingly eternally as a drunkard thief. This is certainly not an admirable way to live, Falstaff will always live looking up to those who support a lifestyle involving some sort of moral code. In fact, we last see Falstaff following Lancaster and the Prince, vowing to lie his way into fortune. Because he did not courageously fight he is not on the same level of companionship with the others, and is treated accordingly. Even when he seemingly convinces at least Lancaster about killing Hotspur, nothing changes; Falstaff exudes a sense of indecency that will follow him wherever he goes. This could be considered worse than the death he avoided. He simply does not speak the language of honor that the others abide by. So for all practical purposes, it was not necessary for Falstaff to act as he did, morals should be abided by in nearly every circumstance.

Big Question and Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex is revolved largely around one prophecy and how that prophecy is upheld. It becomes clear during the play that Oedipus has indeed fulfilled what the prophecy foretold, and focus changes to how characters will react to the uncovering of this truth. Do they forgive, forget, ignore, punish? Oedipus originally blasphemes the killer of the king and promises his punishment, evidently not one to forgive. When he learns that he is the killer, forgiveness isn't even considered. Oedipus presumes himself damned and hastily gouges out his eyes. Had he known forgiveness and been able to forgive himself, a happy ending might be possible.


How important is the power to forgive? Is it essential, or meaningless, or even impossible at times?