Philosophy 1010
Rebellion - Fyodor Dostoevsky

In the passage where Ivan is talking about atonement for the dead, and the tortured children, he poses some questions to his brother Aloysha. For example, “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?”

What I understand from Ivan’s passage here is that he wants to pursue and better understand the overall point of the situation. If the oppressors are going to have to deal with the evil of hell in the after life, why should they get to live the rest of their human life in bliss, while the child has already had his life and its opportunities taken away? I think his first premise (P1) is that evil has a purpose, but the purpose of evil isn’t worth dealing with. I think that this is pretty much saying that, we do need evil for “harmony” but having to deal with this cruel evil isn’t worth waiting for the harmony that comes along with it. Why should the child have to be tortured for the harmony to be achieved? Why can’t we skip the evil step and have harmony as something that doesn’t hurt us before it becomes better?

The second premise that I took from Ivan’s passage is (P2) the justification of evil has worse consequences than positive aspects. This is saying that, if we do want the “harmony” that keeps being mentioned, that perfect life, that we have to deal with evil, and evil is a part of us that needs to be there. But at what cost does it become to much, the murder of children depicted by Ivan in his speech, is his effort to prove that the consequences of evil cant be justified. The little boy that was torn apart by the general’s dogs in front of his mother that was simply justified with “Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed”. There is no atonement for the boy here, he has passed, his life is over, and now he has eternity in “heaven” to wonder what he could have done with his life. The insignificance of his death further more being justified by the evil when Ivan says, “Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned” is just one of many examples that the consequences of evil do not equal the positive aspects.

Thus (C) evil cannot be justified. Overall Ivan’s passage is a strong one, alluding to the bible a couple times (Book of Genesis: “Grown up people they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all”) and also making the reader, and his brother Aloysha really think about their all loving god, and if it is really right to serve under a god that hurts the innocent to make the overall harmony of the world.