Christianity demands that its adherents offer absolute forgiveness. But Ivan says "I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if he will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him!" Some crimes are so beyond the pale against the innocent, believes Ivan, they cannot be forgiven: a sentiment that Ivan's brother Alyosha calls 'rebellion.' Ivan states that the Christian belief that God, rather than the victim of the torturer, can bestow forgiveness is abominable. Furthermore, the soul of the child cannot bestow forgiveness for his suffering because the innocent boy does not really fully understand the horror of what was done to him. The implications of Dostoevsky's debate between the two brothers are still relevant today. During...

Evil aspects of the world can create conditions for evil deeds. As suggested by the case of 'Richard' evil does not seem to solely lie within the innate goodness or evil of the actor. The cries for pure 'vengeance' against evil are difficult to make, given that unambiguous, intentional wrongdoing is not the source of all of the world's woes. A non-human force like a natural disaster is not a moral force. Even apparently evil actions may have ambiguous sociological causes. Addressing those causes is a more worthy aim than the revenge called for by Ivan and more productive, given that if one were to punish every wrongdoer, there would be time for little else. Instead, one should turn one's energies to changing the circumstances that allow crimes to take place, so that there are no more abused 'Richards' who grow up to be abusers themselves.