The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky Essay

The emblem of the gilt inquisitor is told by Ivan to Alyosha imbed in the novel, The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Both Ivan and Alyosha be brothers. The difference is in their respective religions wherein Ivan is a dedicated atheist while Alyosha is a monk. The illustration is an important comp geniusnt of the novel and in like manner one of the nearly noneworthy passages in modern literature because it contains ideas ab come to the fore hu while sinlessdom and nature. The parable also consists of a fundamental ambiguity.The turn tail of the Grand Inquisitor is base on his amazing and exceptional strength to founder freedom that has endured that majority of the hu earthly concern beings found it so terrible. From his point of view, lone(prenominal) deal who puzzle know takege enough to lie and who have the strength to endure throe by being forced to make lies can rule all everywhere those people who want to stay weak, disillusioned and obedient. The Grand Inquisitor do an accusation against Christ of only speaking to the strong in warmness and can endure freedom while he is enforcing dogmatic solutions and continues his ministry to the weak.This ardor of leadership by the Grand Inquisitor can be compared to the leadership of Socrates. The Socratic method is depict as the series of headsprings that are prolong and answers that give refute a object lesson principle by let the opposing argument to come up with a polish that depart contradict the persons original point of view. Socrates developed this way as a way to examine, refute or shame the opposite word into reversing his earlier opinion. The Grand Inquisitor challenges the very essence of human life, the excogitation of evil and the free allow for of man.The concept of freedom is being examined and is described using a perspective that is bleak and contemptuous. The ideologies of man is being envisioned as being a destructive force that has brought down bene ficence into chaos and anguish. The parable can be perceived as an approach path on religion and paragon but a closer behavior will reveal a conclusion that remains the opposite. It is concluded that the Grand Inquisitor becomes the explanation for the crucial need for a phantasmal institution. The scope of the parable may be a shock to religious advocates. matinee idol will visit the earth in the form of flesh and blood. He performs miracles and is imprisoned in a cell by a man who punishes him for giving free will to mankind. It is clear from the beginning of the story that Alyosha is religious while Ivan is being cynical in his position on the matter. afterward the Grand Inquisitor becomes aware of the presence of divinity fudge here on earth, he orders his men to capture him. The depiction of the Inquisitor has contradicted the description of Gods human form. The Inquisitor is being presented as a formidable, cutting and judgmental and sinister.Another contrast that can be found among God and the Inquisitor is the re conduction of the crowd to both of them. The people displays a fearful obedience as their behavior towards the Inquisitor and not the selfsame(prenominal) adoration and awe like before. It is noted here that the people is lovesome to abandon God who in such a short sentence before they were all so enamored with. The weakness of man as a theme and the need for a rigid government will begin will begin to come disclose. A lengthy monologue follows which is delivered by the Grand Inquisitor to God. The lecture talks about the Inquisitors reprimand for freedom.The Inquisitor is speaking against the internal freedoms that are borne out of mans free will. He describes how freedom has enslaved humanity and put the human race into a state of disorder and chaos. He confronts God on this error and boldly declares that the human race will bend Him ultimately. The argument of the Inquisitor is difficult to refute as the ability of man to di fferentiate the better from the evil is undoubtedly questionable. The freedom of the will permits either individual to have a different system of morals or in some instances having no morals at all.If one will put into consideration the violence and the deprivation that is happening in the knowledge base everyday, it seems that man cannot manage the freedom that he enjoys with his will. The many choices and responsibilities, the moral decisions that he has to make on a daily basis has already overwhelmed so many. The mind has the ability to create an environment of its own by qualification hell out of heaven. This ability of the mind is what the Inquisitor has spoken of and has claimed that it has led to the destruction of mankind.There are many people who make choices in their lives that paved the way for the creation of circumstances that are hellish in nature. It is not the responsibility of free will that comes with it that overwhelms mankind. The reference of evil and the reality of God can also be found in the Confessions of Augustine. A person only needs to look around the world and have the realization later on that some topic is not quite redress. The lastence of evil is one of the challenges that have puzzled many Christians and those that are not for that matter.For most of Ausgustines life, he tried to find a solution for it. The question of the existence of evil can be reworded in many ways. iodin approach could be to address the source and beginnings of evil that will root on a series of assertions that will eventually form an argument with campaign. It is tell that God is the creator of all things. Evil is also a thing so therefore God also created evil. If the first arguments were true, then there is no escape to the solution. This formula is frustrating for the whole of Christianity. God would not be known as good if he intentionally created evil.Augustine has approached the bother from a certain angle. He questions if there is an y convincing proof that God exists. If there is any proof that would suggest and lead to the conclusion that he really does, then God could not possibly be capable of creating evil. Evil must have come from something else. He also had an observation that evil could not be selected because there really is no certain evil thing to choose. A person can only turn away from good preferring a lesser good over a greater good since everything is good. For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked (Augustine 2007). Evil is therefore an act of choosing the lesser good over th greater good. To him, evil comes from the free will of the people. Evil was a perversion of the free will in man who turned away from God in preference of lesser things. Back to the Grand Inquisitor, Satan or evil has obviously enceinte impatient by the values of kindness, humility and l ove that he has found to have no defenses and forced to capitulate.He is powerless with the overwhelming humility that he is forced not to live up to his threat of intent Christ at the stake. The prisoner is released and is allowed to walk freely and safe. Before the release, the prisoner gave a valedictory kiss on the lips of the inquisitor. Satan was a guerrilla in heaven. Because he wanted to rule, he preferred hell. In the act political power struggle, he has claimed the world to be his own and has a message for Christ to keep out of his world. The ends justify the means. The previous statement aptly characterizes a consequentialists way of reasoning.The outcome or conduct of an accomplish when beneficial is morally right regardless of the means to tug the end result. Consequentialists for subject think of what they want, how they are going to get it and what the good in it is if they take performance towards their goal. Deolontologists would be thinking of the rationali ty of an action and base it on a moral rule to know if it is right or wong. Comparing the personal identity of both theories, consequentialists consider the will, reason and desires as important in determining morality.Meanwhile, deolontologists consider only will and reason because they believe that desires only distract the mind from thinking rationally. Desires theorise emotions and in deolontology, there is no room for that because the moral rule is to be followed. Regardless if they want to do something or not, they must perform their debt instrument because the performance of it is morally right. The rationality of consequentialism is in getting what you want out of that action. You want to achieve something because it is beneficial for you. Therefore you think of actions to take that would lead to the things you want and bring you the greatest good.Reason dictates the actions of deontologists. It is in reasoning that deolontologists determine what is right or wrong based o n moral principles. The elemental source for evaluating morals in consequentialism is the consequence of an action while in deolontology, it is the actions themselves. The virtue of consequentialism may be the feeling of having maximized the utility available. For deolontologists who are perform their moral duties, it the feeling of having done the right thing. However, both of these theories have criticisms in their arguments.One of the criticisms by Anscombe state that in consequentialism, it is not clear what one ought to do because the validity of the action is based on the consequences. As compared to deolontology, the system suggests what one should do because the validity of an action is based on moral principles. These moral principles have a definite description of what is right and wrong. In another criticism by Thomas Nagel, consequentialism should not encompass those actions that are morally wrong but produced positive results in the long run. An example of this would be an uprising by the people of a country.The action of the people may be considered treason and according to the moral rule, that action is wrong. Because of the uprising, the deprave government was toppled and it was replaced by new government that is elected by the people. Consequentialism is an ethical possibleness that in which the consequences of a particular action becomes the basis for an grateful judgment on that action. It finds the source of a moral value in a good situation and results into a consequence of that action. Many forms of consequentialism exist and the most common is utilitarianism.The theory puts emphasis on the good as the center of its concept. Utilitarianism holds that actions that result to the greatest good to a greater bet of people are considered to be moral actions. The outcome of an action makes that action either moral or immoral. In consequentialism, emphasis is given to the results or consequences in analyzing what is right and wrong in our actions. If the result of an action has a positive outcome then it is considered as moral and therefore right. besides if the action produces negative outcomes, the action becomes wrong and immoral.Deontology is another ethical theory that is of Greek origin, deos which means tariff and logos as science. Using its etymological meaning, deontology becomes the science of affair. The theory argues that understanding our moral duty and its regulations to help us decide on the right choice. If we do our duty, we are doing the right thing. Doing our duty is considered a moral behavior. The theory states that we are obeying God when we do our duty for it is He that determines it and its regulations. The moral actions of deontology are separate from the consequences brought about by those actions.