Crime and Punishment and the Big Q

My big question applies very much to Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov murders an old woman and her sister because he believes that she is a waste of space. At times, Raskolnikov's personality seems to change and he believes that he was wrong to murder the woman, but for the most part he believes that the murder was justified. Raskolnikov felt that the old pawnbroker was not helping anyone and really served no purpose, so he killed her. Because he had justification for the killing, Raskolnikov didn't feel like he had done anything wrong.

King Henry IV and The Big Q

In King Henry IV Hal and Falstaff both do bad things such as drinking and stealing, but despite knowing their actions are wrong, they continue the same behavior. Hal believes that although he is behaving wrongly, it will only make him appear more honorable when he becomes king. It's kind of like a tale of rags to riches. Everyone likes someone who can overcome an obstacle and go on to do great things. Hal doesn't seem to care that his obstacle is self imposed.

Falstaff on the other hand, knows what he is doing wrong, but does not care at all about it. Throughout the entire book, he says he will change but he never does. Falstaff does not have a problem with his poor behavior, he simply thinks he is living life to the fullest and having a good time.

Oedipus Rex and The Big Q

In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus discovers that his oracle states that we will end up killing his father. In order to avoid killing his father he leaves his family behind and starts his life somewhere else. Along the way to his new life, he meets a carriage on the same road he was on. They were coming towards each other and Oedipus did not want to move, so he killed the man in the other carriage. Most people would consider this to be morally wrong, but Oedipus does not seem to have a problem with it. He is worried about killing his father, but is okay with killing a random person? This just doesn't seem right to me...

Ghosts and The Big Q

Mrs. Alving chose not to tell her son about the awful things her father did because she believed she was protecting him, but did she make the right choice? There are arguments for both sides of this question, but I believe that in the end she made the right choice. Although Osvald never really knew his "true" father his life is probably better for not knowing him. If he had known how his father behaved, he might have chosen to believe that what his father did was okay.

Big Question

My big question is...

Why do people do things they know are wrong? And/or how do people define right and wrong.

I need to fix the wording but that is the general idea of my big question.