Fyodor Dostoevsky on the Problem of Evil
When you read this passage from The Brothers Karamazov, you will encounter this sentence:
I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.
What do you think Dostoevsky is trying to say? Why do human beings need to follow their whims? Why are the laws of reason an illusion? In this respect, Dostoevsky has a lot in common with Pascal and Kierkegaard: a suspicion of reason. Create a list of the most common philosophical features the three thinkers share.
The Brothers Karamazov – "Fyodor Dostoevsky on the Problem of Evil"
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1880)
"I must make one confession" Ivan began. "I could never understand how one can love
one's neighbours. It's just one's neighbours, to my mind, that one can't love, though one
might love those at a distance. I once read somewhere of John the Merciful, a saint, that
when a hungry, frozen beggar came to him, he took him into his bed, held him in his
arms, and began breathing into his mouth, which was putrid and loathsome from some
awful disease. I am convinced that he did that from 'self-laceration,' from the self-
laceration of falsity, for the sake of the charity imposed by duty, as a penance laid on
him. For anyone to love a man, he must be hidden, for as soon as he shows his face,
love is gone."
"Father Zossima has talked of that more than once," observed Alyosha; "he, too, said
that the face of a man often hinders many people not practised in love, from loving him.
But yet there's a great deal of love in mankind, and almost Christ-like love. I know that
myself, Ivan."
"Well, I know nothing of it so far, and can't understand it, and the innumerable mass of
mankind are with me there. The question is, whether that's due to men's bad qualities or
whether it's inherent in their nature. To my thinking, Christ-like love for men is a miracle
impossible on earth. He was God. But we are not gods. Suppose I, for instance, suffer
intensely. Another can never know how much I suffer, because he is another and not I.
And what's more, a man is rarely ready to admit another's suffering (as though it were a
distinction). Why won't he admit it, do you think? Because I smell unpleasant, because I
have a stupid face, because I once trod on his foot. Besides, there is suffering and
suffering; degrading, humiliating suffering such as humbles me- hunger, for instance-
my benefactor will perhaps allow me; but when you come to higher suffering- for an
idea, for instance- he will very rarely admit that, perhaps because my face strikes him
as not at all what he fancies a man should have who suffers for an idea. And so he
deprives me instantly of his favour, and not at all from badness of heart. Beggars,
especially genteel beggars, ought never to show themselves, but to ask for charity
through the newspapers. One can love one's neighbours in the abstract, or even at a
distance, but at close quarters it's almost impossible. If it were as on the stage, in the
ballet, where if beggars come in, they wear silken rags and tattered lace and beg for
alms dancing gracefully, then one might like looking at them. But even then we should
not love them. But enough of that. I simply wanted to show you my point of view. I
meant to speak of the suffering of mankind generally, but we had better confine
ourselves to the sufferings of the children. That reduces the scope of my argument to a
tenth of what it would be. Still we'd better keep to the children, though it does weaken
my case. But, in the first place, children can be loved even at close quarters, even when
they are dirty, even when they are ugly (I fancy, though, children never are ugly). The
second reason why I won't speak of grown-up people is that, besides being disgusting
and unworthy of love, they have a compensation- they've eaten the apple and know good and evil, and they have become 'like gods.' They go on eating it still. But the
children haven't eaten anything, and are so far innocent. Are you fond of children,
Alyosha? I know you are, and you will understand why I prefer to speak of them. If they,
too, suffer horribly on earth, they must suffer for their fathers' sins, they must be
punished for their fathers, who have eaten the apple; but that reasoning is of the other
world and is incomprehensible for the heart of man here on earth. The innocent must
not suffer for another's sins, and especially such innocents! You may be surprised at
me, Alyosha, but I am awfully fond of children, too. And observe, cruel people, the
violent, the rapacious, the Karamazovs are sometimes very fond of children. Children
while they are quite little- up to seven, for instance- are so remote from grown-up people
they are different creatures, as it were, of a different species. I knew a criminal in prison
who had, in the course of his career as a burglar, murdered whole families, including
several children. But when he was in prison, he had a strange affection for them. He
spent all his time at his window, watching the children playing in the prison yard. He
trained one little boy to come up to his window and made great friends with him.... You
don't know why I am telling you all this, Alyosha? My head aches and I am sad."
"You speak with a strange air," observed Alyosha uneasily, "as though you were not
quite yourself."
"By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow," Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his
brother's words, "told me about the crimes committed by Turks and Circassians in all
parts of Bulgaria through fear of a general rising of the Slavs. They burn villages,
murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences,
leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them- all sorts of things you
can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and
insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The
tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people
by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing
children, -too; cutting the unborn child from the mothers womb, and tossing babies up in
the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes.
Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is
another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby
in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet
the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a
Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds
out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out
its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they
say."
"Brother, what are you driving at?" asked Alyosha.
"I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own
image and likeness."
"Just as he did God, then?" observed Alyosha.
"'It's wonderful how you can turn words,' as Polonius says in Hamlet," laughed Ivan.
"You turn my words against me. Well, I am glad. Yours must be a fine God, if man
created Him in his image and likeness. You asked just now what I was driving at. You
see, I am fond of collecting certain facts, and, would you believe, I even copy anecdotes
of a certain sort from newspapers and books, and I've already got a fine collection. The
Turks, of course, have gone into it, but they are foreigners. I have specimens from
home that are even better than the Turks. You know we prefer beating- rods and
scourges- that's our national institution. Nailing ears is unthinkable for us, for we are,
after all, Europeans. But the rod and the scourge we have always with us and they
cannot be taken from us. Abroad now they scarcely do any beating. Manners are more
humane, or laws have been passed, so that they don't dare to flog men now. But they
make up for it in another way just as national as ours. And so national that it would be
practically impossible among us, though I believe we are being inoculated with it, since
the religious movement began in our aristocracy. I have a charming pamphlet,
translated from the French, describing how, quite recently, five years ago, a murderer,
Richard, was executed- a young man, I believe, of three and twenty, who repented and
was converted to the Christian faith at the very scaffold. This Richard was an illegitimate
child who was given as a child of six by his parents to some shepherds on the Swiss
mountains. They brought him up to work for them. He grew up like a little wild beast
among them. The shepherds taught him nothing, and scarcely fed or clothed him, but
sent him out at seven to herd the flock in cold and wet, and no one hesitated or scrupled
to treat him so. Quite the contrary, they thought they had every right, for Richard had
been given to them as a chattel, and they did not even see the necessity of feeding him.
Richard himself describes how in those years, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, he
longed to eat of the mash given to the pigs, which were fattened for sale. But they
wouldn't even give that, and beat him when he stole from the pigs. And that was how he
spent all his childhood and his youth, till he grew up and was strong enough to go away
and be a thief. The savage began to earn his living as a day labourer in Geneva. He
drank what he earned, he lived like a brute, and finished by killing and robbing an old
man. He was caught, tried, and condemned to death. They are not sentimentalists
there. And in prison he was immediately surrounded by pastors, members of Christian
brotherhoods, philanthropic ladies, and the like. They taught him to read and write in
prison, and expounded the Gospel to him. They exhorted him, worked upon him,
drummed at him incessantly, till at last he solemnly confessed his crime. He was
converted. He wrote to the court himself that he was a monster, but that in the end God
had vouchsafed him light and shown grace. All Geneva was in excitement about him- all
philanthropic and religious Geneva. All the aristocratic and well-bred society of the town
rushed to the prison, kissed Richard and embraced him; 'You are our brother, you have
found grace.' And Richard does nothing but weep with emotion, 'Yes, I've found grace!
All my youth and childhood I was glad of pigs' food, but now even I have found grace. I
am dying in the Lord.' 'Yes, Richard, die in the Lord; you have shed blood and must die.
Though it's not your fault that you knew not the Lord, when you coveted the pigs' food and were beaten for stealing it (which was very wrong of you, for stealing is forbidden);
but you've shed blood and you must die.'And on the last day, Richard, perfectly limp,
did nothing but cry and repeat every minute: 'This is my happiest day. I am going to the
Lord.' 'Yes,' cry the pastors and the judges and philanthropic ladies. 'This is the
happiest day of your life, for you are going to the Lord!' They all walk or drive to the
scaffold in procession behind the prison van. At the scaffold they call to Richard: 'Die,
brother, die in the Lord, for even thou hast found grace!' And so, covered with his
brothers' kisses, Richard is dragged on to the scaffold, and led to the guillotine. And
they chopped off his head in brotherly fashion, because he had found grace. Yes, that's
characteristic. That pamphlet is translated into Russian by some Russian philanthropists
of aristocratic rank and evangelical aspirations, and has been distributed gratis for the
enlightenment of the people. The case of Richard is interesting because it's national.
Though to us it's absurd to cut off a man's head, because he has become our brother
and has found grace, yet we have our own speciality, which is all but worse. Our
historical pastime is the direct satisfaction of inflicting pain. There are lines in Nekrassov
describing how a peasant lashes a horse on the eyes, 'on its meek eyes,' everyone
must have seen it. It's peculiarly Russian. He describes how a feeble little nag has
foundered under too heavy a load and cannot move. The peasant beats it, beats it
savagely, beats it at last not knowing what he is doing in the intoxication of cruelty,
thrashes it mercilessly over and over again. 'However weak you are, you must pull, if
you die for it.' The nag strains, and then he begins lashing the poor defenceless
creature on its weeping, on its 'meek eyes.' The frantic beast tugs and draws the load,
trembling all over, gasping for breath, moving sideways, with a sort of unnatural
spasmodic action- it's awful in Nekrassov. But that only a horse, and God has horses to
be beaten. So the Tatars have taught us, and they left us the knout as a remembrance
of it. But men, too, can be beaten. A well-educated, cultured gentleman and his wife
beat their own child with a birch-rod, a girl of seven. I have an exact account of it. The
papa was glad that the birch was covered with twigs. 'It stings more,' said he, and so be
began stinging his daughter. I know for a fact there are people who at every blow are
worked up to sensuality, to literal sensuality, which increases progressively at every
blow they inflict. They beat for a minute, for five minutes, for ten minutes, more often
and more savagely. The child screams. At last the child cannot scream, it gasps, 'Daddy
daddy!' By some diabolical unseemly chance the case was brought into court. A
counsel is engaged. The Russian people have long called a barrister 'a conscience for
hire.' The counsel protests in his client's defence. 'It's such a simple thing,' he says, 'an
everyday domestic event. A father corrects his child. To our shame be it said, it is
brought into court.' The jury, convinced by him, give a favourable verdict. The public
roars with delight that the torturer is acquitted. Ah, pity I wasn't there! I would have
proposed to raise a subscription in his honour! Charming pictures.
"But I've still better things about children. I've collected a great, great deal about
Russian children, Alyosha. There was a little girl of five who was hated by her father and
mother, 'most worthy and respectable people, of good education and breeding.' You
see, I must repeat again, it is a peculiar characteristic of many people, this love of torturing children, and children only. To all other types of humanity these torturers
behave mildly and benevolently, like cultivated and humane Europeans; but they are
very fond of tormenting children, even fond of children themselves in that sense. it's just
their defencelessness that tempts the tormentor, just the angelic confidence of the child
who has no refuge and no appeal, that sets his vile blood on fire. In every man, of
course, a demon lies hidden- the demon of rage, the demon of lustful heat at the
screams of the tortured victim, the demon of lawlessness let off the chain, the demon of
diseases that follow on vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on.
"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated
parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one
bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold
and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a
child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they
smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her
mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you
understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should
beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek
unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and
brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and
is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not
have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it
costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to
dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the
apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you
suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."
"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.
"One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only
just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look
it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live
the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic
connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men- somewhat exceptional, I
believe, even then- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that
they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men
then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and
domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He
has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys- all mounted, and in
uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw
of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy
threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up
and down. 'Take him.' He was taken- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night.
Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his
dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade.
The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the
mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy,
autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the
child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,'
commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells
the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him,
and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards
declared incapable of administering his estates. Well- what did he deserve? To be shot?
To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!
"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.
"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a
little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"
"What I said was absurd, but-"
"That's just the point, that 'but'!" cried Ivan. "Let me tell you, novice, that the absurd is
only too necessary on earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing
would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know!"
"What do you know?"
"I understand nothing," Ivan went on, as though in delirium. "I don't want to understand
anything now. I want to stick to the fact. I made up my mind long ago not to understand.
If I try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick
to the fact."
"Why are you trying me?" Alyosha cried, with sudden distress. "Will you say what you
mean at last?"
"Of course, I will; that's what I've been leading up to. You are dear to me, I don't want to
let you go, and I won't give you up to your Zossima."
Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very sad.
"Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of
humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I
have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I
cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I
suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven,
though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With
my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that
there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows
and finds its level- but that's only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to
live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect
simply and directly, and that I know it?- I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And
not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could
see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise
again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven't suffered
simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony
for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and
the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone
suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on
this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do
about them? That's a question I can't answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are
numbers of questions, but I've only taken the children, because in their case what I
mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony,
what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond all comprehension why they
should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish
material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin
among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such
solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all
their fathers' crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension.
Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but
you see he didn't grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh,
Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the
universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise
and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways
are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs,
and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of
knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I
can't accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own
measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment,
or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother
embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then.
While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher
harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on
the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears
to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be
atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for
them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them?
What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children
have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to
forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children
go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest
that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him
for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her
mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she
dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they
dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who
would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for
humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would
rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were
wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so
much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an
honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not
God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."
"That's rebellion," murmured Alyosha, looking down.
"Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly. "One can hardly live in
rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you
are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end,
giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to
death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to
found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on
those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
Source: The Brothers Karamazov
This work is in the Public Domain.