Dostoevsky, Evil, and Universal Morality

Dostoevsky’s Moral Dilemma

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky conveys a striking philosophical idea through the character of Ivan Karamazov:

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

But is this way of thinking truly correct? At the end of the novel, isn’t it precisely this belief that ultimately destroys Ivan? Is Dostoevsky, like Nietzsche, warning us against a dangerous form of nihilism, or is he emphasizing the need to accept a painful truth about human existence? And, most importantly, is Ivan Karamazov actually right?

According to Divine Command Theory, morality can be known only through God. The teachings written in the Bible, or in any other sacred text that believers follow, function as a set of moral rules for those who accept these texts as true. From these teachings, people can derive moral principles and a sense of meaning. Moreover, if the sacred text genuinely reflects the ultimate truth, then it is possible to speak of the existence of an objective moral system in the world.

When we consider the opposite perspective, unfortunately, as I have mentioned on my earlier blog, all paths ultimately lead to moral nihilism. Dostoevsky was well aware of this, which is why in The Brothers Karamazov he presents us with two contrasting characters.

Ivan is a character who does not believe in God and represents moral nihilism powerfully throughout the novel. However, when his ideology moves from theory to practice, he is unable to endure its consequences and eventually descends into madness.

In contrast, Alyosha emerges as a counterpoint to Ivan. He embodies a sense of absolute optimism in response to Ivan’s pessimism. He believes in God and maintains a strong spiritual connection with him.

I believe that Dostoevsky’s primary intention in the novel was to demonstrate that Ivan’s ideas, while theoretically possible, ultimately prove insufficient in practice, just as the events of the story reveal. Much like Nietzsche, who regarded nihilism as a problem that must be overcome, Dostoevsky shared similar concerns. The final chapters of The Brothers Karamazov make it clear that this is the ultimate message the reader is meant to take away.

However, if we set the novel aside for a moment and examine Ivan’s ideas in the context of modern moral debates authority. Several major ethical frameworks have emerged as attempts to answer this question., can we truly say that he was wrong? 

Throughout history, philosophers have grappled with the question of whether moral systems can exist independently of divine authority. Several major ethical frameworks have emerged as attempts to answer this question.

Ethics Without a God

After centuries of moral debates, philosophers have long attempted to develop ethical systems without placing God at the center. Among these are Kant’s deontological ethics, which is based on duty and rationality, and naturalistic approaches to morality, which ground ethical principles in human nature or the natural world. Other notable examples include utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their consequences for overall happiness, and existentialist ethics, which emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility in creating moral values.

Let us now briefly examine these approaches.

Kant’s Deontological Ethics:

This ethical framework can be briefly described as strictly black and white, allowing no “gray areas.” An action is either right or wrong, and no justification can turn a wrong action into a right one.

Kant’s rigid approach has faced significant criticism from many philosophers. One of the most well-known and powerful objections in the literature involves the following kind of scenario:

“You see a young girl being chased by a murderer and help her hide. The murderer comes to you and asks if you have seen her. If you say ‘No,’ are you really committing an immoral act?”

According to Kant, lying is morally wrong under any circumstances. Therefore, even if your lie serves a good purpose, such as protecting an innocent life, it is still considered morally impermissible.

Naturalistic Ethics:

According to this view, morality can be found within nature itself. In short, evolutionary theory is seen as sufficient to provide the basis for moral behavior. However, this approach contains several serious problems.

First, the evolutionary process operates through random chance and lacks any inherent moral order or guiding purpose. It is a natural mechanism, not a moral one. Second, if we derive our moral system directly from nature, we must also accept the principle of “the strong dominating the weak” as part of that system. Such a view could lead to numerous issues in modern society, as it risks justifying harmful social structures or unethical behaviors simply because they occur in nature. 

Another famous criticism of this ethical view was made by David Hume, known as the “is–ought problem.” Hume argued that one cannot directly derive an “ought” (what should be) from an “is” (what is). In other words, moral obligations cannot be logically inferred from mere descriptions of nature.

Utilitarianism:

According to this ethical framework, what is morally right is determined by what benefits the majority. At first glance, this principle may seem reasonable; however, upon closer reflection, it becomes clear that it contains several significant problems.

First, who exactly defines the majority? For example, if 51% of people support one decision while 49% oppose it, does simply following the majority truly guarantee a moral outcome? Second, utilitarian reasoning can sometimes justify actions that seem deeply unethical, such as sacrificing an innocent child to save the lives of five other people. These scenarios reveal the potential dangers of relying solely on majority-based calculations to determine moral rightness.

Existentialist Ethics:

According to this view, human beings are completely free. There are no universal moral laws or divine commands, and each individual must create their own ethical framework. This, however, brings with it a great responsibility.

In my opinion, existentialist ethics is essentially a “beautified” version of moral nihilism. In the end, universal meaning is rejected, and morality becomes subjective. Compared to other ethical systems, this approach not only reveals a harsh existential truth, but also brings certain problems to light. This is because existentialist ethics does not directly refer to clear notions of good and evil.

The Major Problem of Moral Nihilism - Ted Bundy

According to moral nihilism, good and evil cannot be objectively distinguished; in other words, there is no real difference between them. This idea leads to several serious problems. If moral nihilism is accepted, then “evil” actions become permissible as long as one is not caught by the authorities and does not feel any personal guilt.

The situation can be best illustrated by a statement made by serial killer Ted Bundy during an interview:

“Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments.’ All value judgments are subjective and none can be proved to be either right or wrong. (…) In short, my dear young lady, there’s no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I might take in r4p1ng and murder1ng you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me — after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”

These sentences demonstrate that, no matter how horrific or brutal they may sound, if morality is completely rejected together with the idea of God, then there is no objective way to refute them.

The real question we must ask here is this:

Is Bundy’s statement something that should simply be dismissed as absurd, or is it a painful truth that must be confronted?

Conclusion

Philosophers like Wittgenstein placed the concepts of good and evil in a mystical realm, similar to Kant’s noumenon, arguing that human beings cannot truly know them. However, as this short essay has shown, the notions of good and evil are crucial topics that must be discussed in philosophy.

I will refrain from giving you a definitive answer here. Nevertheless, when these issues are approached objectively, it becomes clear that every moral theory other than Divine Command Theory contains multiple significant problems within itself. And unfortunately, in the end, when faced with a person who does not believe in God, has become morally desensitized, and even takes pleasure in committing evil acts, we find ourselves unable to explain why their actions are wrong beyond the phenomenal level.

[AI was only used for translation purposes. As English is not my first language, I had to use an AI to translate the whole text from German to English so that I could blog it.]