The Brothers Karamazov   Though you may never have read this book, you've most likely heard it's emphatic cry, "Without God, all things are allowed." A great number of readers, attempting to convince themselves of the religious importance of this book, speciously tell themselves that this famous quotation can unequivocally be attributed to the religious philosophy of Dostoyevsky. However, I believe that not only does the book argue against this quotation, it well should.   A first glance at this novel reveals a polarity between the characters: there are the religious and the atheists, or, as the book states it, the spiritualists and the sensualists. Sensualists are painted as sex-craved, thieving animals, while spiritualists are shown to be virtuous, compassionate beings. Within the Karamazov family, the one spiritualist, Alyosha, desperately tries to balance the scales against the sensualists Fyador, Dmitri, Ivan, and Smerdyakov.   The ending itself, some will say, proves that Dostoevsky truly believed that "without God, all things are allowed." For, you see, both the heathens and the sacred receive their just deserts. Fyador is murdered, Ivan goes insane, Dmitri is imprisoned, and Smerdyakov commits suicide. Alyosha alone, the solo spiritualist, is left to comfort the survivors and get on with his life. So it seems then, given this black and white picture, that of course Dostoevsky believes in his most famous quotation. At a deeper analysis, discrepancies begin to emerge.   Although the lives of all four Karamov sensualists came to unwanted, painful endings, this should not be attributed to the quote. For you see, while all four men were intrigued with and often mouthed the quote, only Smerdyakov put the quote into action. The three remaining sensualists fell as a direct result of Smerdyakov's crime.   Smerdyakov murders Fyador Karamazov and robs him of three thousand roubles. Dmitri is framed for this crime and is sentenced to hard labor in Siberia. After Ivan realizes what has been done to his father and brother, he goes insane with "brain fever." So, three men innocent of employing the quote in their lives are now condemned by it. Perhaps these were still their just deserts for even considering the quote, but the fact that Smerdyakov does not get off unpunished disproves this thesis. The day before the trial in which Alyosha will see his own brother innocently condemned, and before Smerdyakov even touches the three thousand roubles for which he shed another man's blood for, he ends his life with a hanging. Therefore, even without God, a professed atheist will voluntarily seek punishment when he doesn't have to. He still has a conscience, and everything is not allowed. The characters of Grushenka and Kolya also serve as vindication to the new thesis that Dostoevsky himself did not believe his most famous of quotes. When Dmitri is first arrested, Dostoevsky makes a point in repeatedly showing that of everyone in town, Alyosha is the only one who believes in his brother's innocence. At the moment there is not a shred of evidence to prove his innocence, while there is a mountain of evidence that points to his guilt. Supposedly then, it takes the blind faith of a spiritualist to spring forth to his poor brother Dmitri's side. Later, however, we find that there is another person who had similarly stood by Dmitri's side, Grushenka. This discovery is particularly important because Grushenka is probably the most detestable character in the entire book. As a woman of ill-repute, she entertains several male suitors during the same period, and even boasts of it. She takes Dmitri away from his first love, and later purposely befriends her so that she may again spit in her face, this time in front of Dmitri's own eyes. Later, she accepts a few of Fyador's come-ons so that she may torment him and cause stress within the Karamazov house. Many critics consider Fyador to be the most detestable character of the novel, but Grushenka emerges to out-Fyador Fyador himself. So, the choice to use Grushenka as another who had faith in Dmitri makes a mockery of the original thesis. At first, it is only the morally best character Alyosha who has faith in his brother and it seems that only the religious can behave morally. Then, by equating Grushenka with Alyosha, this view is completely destroyed. It is shown that both the God-fearing and the God-disrespecting can have the same faith in man.   This late-developing admission is then coupled with the introduction of a new character, Kolya. Kolya is the first atheistic character who shows genuine compassion for his fellow man. As a socialist, he is working towards a heaven on Earth for man. When a boy who had previously stabbed him becomes ill, Kolya devotes weeks to cheering up the lad, finding and training his dog, giving him his most prized possession, and generally giving out laughs to a lad in his deathbed. Also, the fact that Kolya and Alyosha become good friends speaks towards our new thesis. Alyosha had never been able to become friends with any sensualist throughout the story and had only been able to first visit a non-Karamazov sensualist like Grushenka after he was questioning his faith after the death of his beloved Father Zossima. By showing that Alyosha could become true friends with an atheist shows that God is not needed to order society, many mixtures of differing humans will still yield cooperation and common interests. From the fact that Kolya is brought in late in the story, just like the discovery of Grushenka's faith, I deduce that Dostoevsky's true opinion is ascertained and he was merely entertaining the religious view previously so that he could blindside it's promoters in the end. For what other reason would one perspective be shown to begin with, and it's complete opposite be shown at the ending? This book is similar to a critical essay. The opposing argument is first lain down so that it may later be demolished when the true views come to fruition. Not only does the literary evidence vindicate this conclusion, it is the only tenable conclusion, speaking philosophically, as well.   You know what's the hardest argument for people to believe regarding the capital punishment issue is? It is the fact that numerous studies have shown that there is no deterrent factor in using the death penalty. "That cannot be so," objectors will say, "no rational person would consider life in prison to be no better than electrocution." And therein lies the problem: murder is not a rational decision. A would-be murderer, enflamed by a sense of explosive vengeance does not say to himself, "Hey! This state doesn't have any capital punishment, so I'll kill my enemy and get off nearly scot free with only a life sentence!" More probable, is the conclusion that the murderer does not stop to think about the consequences. For this reason, the "without God, everything is allowed" argument does not hold true. Just think, if a criminal is not deterred by the death penalty, what could possibly make hell a deterrent? Would a criminal ever say to himself, "if I commit this murder I might go to hell"? Perhaps afterwards, but never during the emotional frenzy of the act itself. But even this answer is questionable, given the allowance by so many religions of a deathbed repentance. Speaking of repentance, it used to be the number one objection given to the death penalty. It was not considered morally justifiable to kill a person before they had made peace with their maker. But anyhow, the claim that God is needed to make laws assumes a hell-deterrent, which is ridiculous. The mere fact that we have a never-ending supply of extra-religious laws shows our implicit denial of the claim that "without God, everything is allowed." Our secular laws say, "even with God, these other activities are still not allowed." If everything is allowed without God, it implies that God is the maker of laws. Yet man easily makes any law he pleases, so the original premise must be faulty.   There is however, a precised meaning of the quotation in which Dostoyevsky would approve. Along with quoting the quote, it was once also followed by another phrase: "If there were no God, we should have to invent one." This new quote was given by the two atheist intellectuals, Ivan and Kolya. This view claims not that God actually creates laws, but that he gives manmade laws force and strength. Without this strength, our most modest deterrents such as the prison-deterrent may not have any force. So, if anything, Dostoyevsky believed in this narrowed down version of "without God, everything is allowed." But this is not to say that he believed in God as a lawmaker, only as an illusion used towards keeping order. Both the book and the real life philosophical aspects speak towards this view.