I am reading a book (not at the moment, but am in the process of doing so) in which there is a semi-debate over the nature of crime and criminals.
The protagonist of the book argues that in the world there are two different types of men: ordinary men, and extraordinary men. He believe that ordinary men are simply followers, born into the world to live and obey. The extraordinary men are leaders, revolutionaries. He cites Napoleon as an extraordinary man. But what strikes me the most is that he makes the case that extraordinary men must be allowed the moral right to commit crimes in order to fulfill their potential. Basically, he argues that extraordinary men are immune from committing criminal acts, because an act which would be criminal for an ordinary man is not so for an extraordinary man. He makes an example that if an extraordinary man needed something, but there were one-hundred people in his way, that he should (and is) allowed to dispose of these people; they being only "ordinary" men, and their purposes being only to obey, and procreate.
Tell, what do you think of all this? Now, before you answer, give it some thought. Do not simply dismiss it as an incredible claim (as I was wont to do).
If you have any other questions as to the nature of the question, simply ask [me] and you shall receive [some answers].
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Would that be one of Nietzsche's books?
I disagree with the argument that 'extrodinary' men should be allowed to commit criminal acts, that's a ridiculus claim. First of all, there isn't a good definition of what is 'extrodinary' so there'd be no way to tell who is extrodinary, and allowed to commit crimes and what actions are extrodinary enough to be allowed to be commited despite the harm they cause. It seems to me that the only way to identify an 'extrodinary' man is by looking at history and what he's already done, which is of course is useless as a way to justify future actions.
If being extrodinary is just having the ambition to not want to be just a follower then everyone is extrodinary to some extent and being extrodinary is not always a good thing either. People like Hitler and Stalin were extrodinary men be this definition, yet they were evil and did much more harm than good, and also without a doubt killed many who if they had lived, would have been more 'extrodinary still'.
Another problem is that one of the hundred 'ordinary' men the extrodinary man in your example was going to kill could actually be a far more 'extrodinary' man than the one doing the killing, so that action can never be morally justified. Finally, this philosophy lets anyone commit a crime and just claim that they're extrodinary and therefore not guilty, this would lead to anarchy in which the people who already have power would be favored, no matter how ordinary they are.
No, John.
You are confused, I can see. I did not fully explain the belief of the protaginist. (No, it isn't one of Nietzche's books.)
According to the belief, the extraordinary men are morally justified in committing crime, but not legally. So if an extraordinary man kills someone (for a purpose, not simply for the joy of killing), then he is morally justified in doing so. HOWEVER, it does not prevent him from being persecuted.
There is no clear boundary between the two classes of men. Occasionally an ordinary man would think he is extraordinary, but if he wasn't in actuality, where is the harm done? He can do no harm to anyone but himself by thinking himself extraordinary.
A little more on the term 'extraordinary': It is not a label that people actually obtain. People are often times later on 'judged' extraordinary by history, but in their own times they would simply be highly intelligent, or revolutionary, criminals.
Hitler and Stalin (and Hitler especially) could each have a case made for them for being extremely extraordinary men. Of course, they were both criminals by our definitions, so were they mere criminals, or something more? What does your gut tell you?
If there is more that is unclear to you, just ask me to clarify.
I'm not quite sure what I think about that, but is there a space between the ordinary and extraordinary men? Just curious.
That made even less sense than the original post.
Laws are always based on morality, but according to this person the laws should contradict his moral values? You said that the 'extrodinary' men should be allowed to commit what would be crimes for normal people in the first post... then you said that they shouldn't be allowed to. So according to what you've said this person thinks there should be unjust laws, and people who he believes aren't criminals should be arrested and punished when they have commited no crime? Unless he's just saying that 'exceptional' people never get caught because they're so exceptional, which would be a very illogical argument.
And an ordinary person could do harm to others by thinking he's extrodinary, he could kill someone, thinking it's morally justified, I'd say that's harming someone.
What is 'extrodinary' acording to this person? You just said that people don't actually obtain the label of being extrodinary.
And I don't listen to my gut, even though it tells me that I have more nerve endings there than in my head. Besides, what do you mean by "...something more?"
Interesting...This sounds like an intriguing book. If I may ask, what is the name of this book, and by whom?
Firstly, John, you say that laws are created from morals. Of course, this is a 'loaded' statement, if you will. One cannot exactly agree with you (I'm not saying I would in any case) without first asking for clarification: Morals of whom are these laws based on? Morals of a God-fearing, humble, poor Amish man? Or the morals of a radical, revolutionary anarchist? Or perhaps the morals of a despondent fatalist? The source of the morals of which speak is extremely important.
Now, to the subject matter of the actual post. The idea presented here, by Kevin, actually makes me uneasy. To say the least, I disagree with it.
I believe that all men should be held to the same moral standing, no given their position. They are all men--just men--after all. They are all born the same (though not into the same position; but essentially, they are all born the same), some are not born 'extraordinary' while most just 'ordinary.' Now, a distinction, of sorts, may come in later. Some men may do extraordinary things in their life, while other men are content with their ordinary accomplishments. But, also, based on this, I believe that all men can accomplish 'extraordinary' things; it would come down to ambition, will, skill (some developed and some inherent), and ingenuity. So, perhaps some would consider them 'extraordinary' due to these factors, but I don't think that is why the protagonist would say they are 'extraordinary,' though I could be wrong, as I don't know what the protagonist thinks. However, whether this is the protagonist's reasoning or not, I still do not believe these factors that some men have in abundance make them morally exempt from crimes to which all others must answer.
[Note: In the above paragraph, when I described men doing 'extraordinary' feats, that does, of course, depend on the viewer's perspective.]
Now, there is also the problem as to who decides who is extraordinary. Any two people may disagree on any given person. A nazi may defend Hitler as an extraordinary person who was trying to achieve the greatest feat in history, and thus his actions are morally justified. Another may hold that he was nothing more than an evil, but great, orator. Unfortunately, there is no objectively right answer, as these are opinions.
Although, I still hold that there are no extraordinary people, only extraordinary accomplishments. Note, though, that these extraordinary accomplishments did not just stumble unto ordinary people, but were achieved by ordinary people by hard work. Usually.
Now..I don't know what else there is to say.
An interesting point, though. If people actually believed this (I'm not saying they don't) and labeled themselves as extraordinary, nothing is to stop them from acting like Hitler. Believing they are exempt, they would just parade around with few worries--morally, at any rate. And they wouldn't commit suicide if their empire is crumbling and millions of persons are found dead at their expense because-hey--they are morally exempt.
All men are held to one moral standard; no one is exempt and nothing can change that.
x.x
Okay. (John, the word is 'extraordinary'.)
Here is an excerpt from the conversation between Raskolnikoff (the protaginist) and some 'friends': (Note: it is a long excerpt)
"That wasn't quite my contention," he began simply and modestly. "Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so." (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) "The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right . . . that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep . . . certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn't definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to /eliminate/ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all . . . well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed--often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law--were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are /in general/ divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter /a new word/. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood--that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There's no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me--and /vive la guerre éternelle/--till the New Jerusalem, of course!"
The name of the book is Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. I'm sure you all know it, we learned of it in 9th grade in AP Euro.
I've been spelling it wrong the whole time :( I almost feel dumb. But my gut told me that there was no a in it, I could just listen to it instead of books, like dictionaries...
Anyway, that explains it, he's just a crazy, petty criminal who wants to justify his actions. His entire definition of 'extraordinary' is someone who is later remembered for greatness, and has ambition to want to commit a crime, and he certainly isn't a great man (or an extraordinary one). He also seems to place almost no value on human life, for either ordinary or extraordinary men - because he's crazy.
John have you read the boook?
Raskolnikoff is no ordinary man, in the general sense. He is extremely intelligent, and calculating, and I would never consider him simply a 'petty criminal.'
And also, up to the point I've read so far in the book (much farther than the excerpt I've provided) Raskolnikoff has not claimed to be an extraordinary man, nor tried to justify his deeds by claiming to be one.
Also, keep in mind, that Raskolnikoff wrote this article (for the whole discussion in the book arose from an article Raskolnikoff wrote concerning the subject) before he committed the murder, and, in fact, before he even had any intentions of committing a murder or any other crime.
Of course not, but I did read the Sparknotes summary, or part of it...
As I thought.
i agree with john. mostly because you don't. sorry
Post a Comment