“Would a hideous crime be justified if it was for the sake of the greater good?”. This is the central question of discussion behind the famous Trolley Problem. There is not a completely ethical, justifiable answer to this dilemma yet, but we can also find inspirations from literature concerned with such thematic. Fyodor Dostoevsky gave his interpretations of this dilemma in his famous novel “Crime and Punishment” through the lens of a former law student currently in destitute named Raskolnikov.
           
            Raskolnikov dwelled in a tiny apartment in St. Petersburg. Forlorn and impoverished, he eventually decided to do something to change the situation of his life. On a stormy night, Raskolnikov stepped into the pawn shop he occasionally visit. A horrendous murder ensued that left the elderly, avaricious pawn broker in a puddle of her own blood. Raskolnikov rationalized the crime as “a small sacrifice for the greater good”. In his perspective, the pawn broker has been exploiting him over a long period of time --- he was not receiving the payment he deserved for pawning his cherished items. Raskolnikov tricked himself into thinking that he was doing society “a favour” for eliminating such a scourge for the benefit of everybody. He chose that one person on the alternate paths rather than the five on the other.
 
            However, down to the core, Raskolnikov still retained some sympathy for the decease of another human life. Since it was his first attempted murder, he was not able to quell the struggle in his heart between his ideology of “serving the greater good” and his conscience as a human being. Quarrels constantly broke out in his head till the point where he could not tolerate anymore. Raskolnikov thought about confessing to the police, but he did not have the courage to do so. Change happened when he met Sonya, a prostitute he met in a tavern, and came into contact with religion. He found a place where he could confess his sins and relieve the stress that has been haunting him for days and nights. His mindset altered drastically after the encounter; he became empathetic and almost sentimental. The final straw on the camel’s back that consolidated his mind to confess to the police and let the law, his former guidance in life, decide his fate was the encounter with Svidrigalov. Although a complete menace to him and his sister’s life, he surprisingly discovered that Svidrigalov was able to show generosity and compassion in rare instances. Raskolnikov eventually confessed to the police.
 
            Although Dostoevsky did not give an explicit answer on whether if the greater good outweighs individual rights, he did display the inner struggles of a person who made that decision to us. Maybe one day an answer will be found. Maybe there will never be a perfect solution to the dilemma. The amount of mental burden one has to carry after making a decision is tremendous, but lest we forget there are always companions on which we can rely on to make the right decision.