Immortality and morality (selections from Books I, II, and III)
As soon as ALYOSHA reflected seriously, he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism isn’t merely the labor question; it is, before all things, the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth. (I.5)
#
“There’s no proving life beyond the grave,” FATHER ZOSSIMA said, “but you can be convinced of it. By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably. In so far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbor, then you will believe without doubt, and no doubt can possibly enter your soul. This has been tried. This is certain.” (II.4)
#
“I will tell you,” Miusov said, “an interesting and rather characteristic anecdote of IVAN Fyodorovitch. Only five days ago, in a gathering here, principally of ladies, he solemnly declared in argument that there was nothing in the whole world to make men love their neighbors. That there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. And that’s not all. He ended by asserting that for every individual who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even be recognized as the inevitable, the most rational, even the honorable outcome of his position.”
“Excuse me,” DMITRI cried suddenly; “if I’ve heard rightly, crime must not only be permitted but must be recognized as the inevitable and the most rational outcome of his position for every infidel! Is that so or not?” “Quite so,” said Father Paissy. “I’ll remember it,” Dmitri said. And having uttered these words, he ceased speaking as suddenly as he’d begun. Everyone looked at him with curiosity. (II.6)
#
“Did you hear your brother IVAN’s stupid theory just now,” Rakitin said, “that if there’s no immortality of the soul, then there’s no virtue, and everything is lawful. (And by the way, do you remember how your brother MITYA cried out: ‘I will remember!’) An attractive theory for scoundrels! Or maybe not scoundrels, but for pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’ He’s showing off. His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.” (II.7)
#
FYODOR
Ivan, speak, is there a God or not? Speak the truth, speak seriously.
IVAN
No, there is no God.
FYODOR
Alyosha, is there a God?
ALYOSHA
There is.
FYODOR
Ivan, is there immortality of some sort, just a little, just a tiny bit?
IVAN
There is no immortality either.
FYODOR
None at all?
IVAN
None at all.
FYODOR
There’s absolute nothingness then. Perhaps there is just something? Anything is better than nothing! Alyosha, is there immortality? God and immortality?
ALYOSHA
God and immortality. In God is immortality.
FYODOR
H’m! It’s more likely Ivan’s right. Good Lord! to think what faith, what force of all kinds, man has lavished for nothing on that dream, and for how many thousand years. Who is laughing at man? Ivan, for the last time, once for all, is there a God or not? I ask for the last time!
IVAN
And for the last time there is not.
FYODOR
Who’s laughing at mankind, Ivan?
IVAN
It must be the devil,
FYODOR
And the devil? Does he exist?
IVAN
No, there’s no devil either.
FYODOR
It’s a pity. Damn it all, what wouldn’t I do to the man who first invented God! Hanging on a bitter aspen tree would be too good for, him.
IVAN
There would have been no civilization if they hadn’t invented God.”
FYODOR
Wouldn’t there have been? Without God?
IVAN
No. And there would have been no brandy either. But I must take your brandy away from you, anyway.
FYODOR
Stop, stop, stop, dear boy, just one more little glass… (III.8)
-
How do different views about the immortality of the soul affect how one understands the need to act morally? (philosophical question)
-
What does the different views that characters express about the relation between immortality and morality reflect about these characters, e.g., their personality, their typical motivation.
Considering Karamazov 
I believe that one acts based on he or she percieves his worth. If on believes that God has forsaken him or that he is no good, he has little need to behave morally.
In Ivan’s case, he does not believe in a God. But I do not understand why he still holds back from showing is intentions to his brother’s betrothed. If he did not care because there is no God, then why is he choosing to do the moral thing and not commit adultery?
I would like to comment on what Father Zossima said…
The best way to explain what Father Zossima is saying here is to say that the more in which you forget yourself the more you can love your neighbor. The more in which you love your neighbor, the closer you will become with God. The closer you are to God the closer you are towards immortality and morality. If you are moral you won’t worry. He says you cannot prove immortality, but you can become convinced of it if you live a life of love and good deeds. If you do good, nothing else matters, and all the troubles will go away. Believing in immortality is an action, an action towards loving others. It is an active love in which you simply “just do it”.
As Jena brought up in class, what Father Zossima has to say here is a lot like MLK’s agape love. It is the whole idea of making yourself closer to God by loving how he does. Love your neighbor as yourself but also love your enemies. Hate the crime not the person who committed the crime.
This idea is reflected again in Book IV in one of Father Zossima’s last speeches. He gathers everyone and tells them to not judge and to actively love humankind. These words are similar to the quote above about immortality and morality. In my opinion, it is easy for Father Zossima to share these words with everyone because it is how he lived his life. Also, so many people respect him and his deeds so it is understandable that the people would want to know the key to morality.
I would also like to comment on the conversation between Ivan, Fyodor, and Dmitri. While Ivan says there is no God or immortality, Alyosha says there is both. Fyodor is quick to ignore and dismiss Alyosha and focuses his attention more on Ivan. Fyodor likes what Ivan has to say about this and thinks it the person who created God is rather humorous. It is easy for him to believe what Ivan is saying because if he accepts Alyosha’s reasoning he would have to question his life and the way he has been living for so long. He decides to go with Ivan because Ivan’s idea is the easy way out. He covers it up with another glass or brandy and decides to drink any thoughts away. I believe Fyodor deep down realizes that Alyosha is right but Fyodor will never admit he is at fault for anything so he covers up the truth.
You are very nicely reflecting on how, for Dostoevsky, a belief (especially about things like immortality and morality) isn’t independent of the personality/identity of the character who express it. And also how it can be difficult to confront the implications of such beliefs for one’s own life (and thus, for Fyodor, the need for drink). From this perspective, Alyosha is a personification of a certain attitude about God and immortality; his “active love” directly follows from his understanding.
Comparing what characters (and people, for that matter) say- and seem to believe – with what they do is always worthwhile.
I want to comment on Dmitri’s interjection of Ivan describing his theory of immortality. I find it very interesting how he suddenly comes out of nowhere and says that he will remember Ivan’s theory of crime being permitted and inevitable. I feel this connects to the end of book three when Dmitri tells Alexey that he is planning something and it is something dark. He put Ivan’s theory in the back of his mind, its almost as if Dmitri started planning something when he heard of the idea that crime could be permittable in a society that didn’t believe in immortality. If he keeps his mind set on this idea, anything he plans will be “okay.” Is this foreshadowing?? Cary
For now, let’s just say that it’s “suggestive” – i.e., as you nicely pointed out, it certainly doesn’t look good! (And we are apparently to understand that it didn’t look good to those who heard it.) It’s just that in Dostoevsky’s world, people have complicated – sometimes even contradictory – motives and intentions, such that neither they nor others can sometimes be sure about what they want to do. (Compare Grushenka and Katerina in this respect.) So, we’ll have to wait and see what, if anything, comes of Dmitri’s outburst…
I would like to refer back to this section of the book, specifically to Ivan’s theory of immortality and everything be acceptable. We all paid so much attention to Dmitri’s reaction and sudden interjection while Ivan was speaking. What we should have noticed is what Ivan was really saying and also we should have paid attention to the conversations that Smerdyakov was either around to hear or involved in. I personally, had a bias towards Dmitri because of Dostoevsky’s characterization of him up to this point. He seemed like the person who would kill his father, especially after his comment about what Ivan had said.
It is just interesting how things like this can be misinterpreted. It was a slight foreshadow.
If someone believes in the immortality of their soul then they are more likely to try and act as what society percieves as “good”. This is of course subjective because what society believes is “good” is changing all the time (just ask Neitzche). If, however, you are like Ivan and believe religion/Christianity to be a joke then you see no need to act morally because if you don’t get caught then there is virtually no punishment. It’s a pretty sweet deal. Non-religious (assuming these people don’t believe in the existence of a soul) only follow the law for fear of getting caught, not because they think, morally, it is the right thing to do.
It’s certainly reasonable to consider morality as subjective in important ways. But, to take the other end of it, is it “just” a social opinion that it is evil to torture children? Nietzsche, btw, read Dostoevsky and is understood to have admired his writing. And one might see Nietzche exploring Ivan’s perceptions without the possibility of Zossima’s.
So what about Neitzche’s idea of the “Ubermensch”, the superman. The person who is morally above everyone and starts the new moral order, so to speak. It seems to me that the characters are stuck in the phase just before this. At the end of it all, when everything falls apart (and patricide has been committed) could Alyosha be the ubermensch that emerges? He seems to be the most moral, but at the same time he lives in the world where God exists, Neitzche belived God to be dead in society. That leads me to belive that Ivan, with all his fancy theories could be the superman to emerge, but he himself is also stuck with the morals of a Christian-dominated society.
I know I’ve descended into Neitzche’s world and left Dostoevsky’s, but I thought it was interesting to apply Neitzche’s theory on the evolution of morality to the world Dostoevsky created in Brothers K.
In “Crime and Punishment,” Dostoevsky explores the psychological difficulty of acting as a “superman” – i.e., independent of external, especially, God-centered, morality – when it involves committing murder. He seems to be suggesting in that work that there may be human limits beyond which one can’t go without falling apart. But in Brothers K, the torture of children would seem to argue in the other direction.
It’s certainly not true that “God is dead” for Alyosha, but the God of miracles seems to be dead for him after the decomposition of Zossima. And perhaps Dostoevsky is seeing him as being able to become something analogous to a Nietzschean hero, but one who expresses love, rather power, for its own sake.
(Nice observations re. Nietzsche. You might want to think about how the Grand Inquisitor’s view about the evolution of morality relates.)
Immortality is certainly a belief that goes hand in hand with the belief of the existence of a higher power; in this case, God. However, morality does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with God. Surely there is Christian morality which has such beliefs of chastity and heterosexual marriage, but there is also morality in regards to humanity. Humans do not refrain from murder merely on the belief that by doing so they will either be punished or abstained from immortality. Personally, I refrain from these acts because it would be against my character and rational thought process to do so. In regards to Father Zossima, actively loving your neighbors may help you believe in immortality. This is a popular belief because people like to believe that good behavior leads to good consequences. Immortality is seen as a reward in which not everybody receives, so acting morally, in regards to Christianity, should lead to immortality. If people are only acting morally in hopes of receiving immortality, than Ivan is right, if God was proven not to exist then morality might disappear in those people. However, if one was acting morally just for the sake of humanity, then God really has nothing to do with it and society could function without it. The problem with that though is that not all people want to act “good” just for the sake of acting “good”, some people need the belief of the reward, which is where God comes into play. Ivan obviously does not believe in God so he would fall into the first category, but Fyodor would fall into the second category. I agree with Mara’s comment regarding Fyodor’s character. Since he believes that morality leads to immortality, he does not want to believe in God. Not believing allows him to justify his character.