To help emphasize this point, one can simply look to the philosophical writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Jean-Paul Sartre. In Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground, the reader is thrown into the mind of a man plagued by alternating doubt and egotism. The Underground Man, who is never named, is the perfect manifestation of a tortured soul weighed down in a self-created purgatory. Sartre also brings the concept of hell into his play No Exit by taking the scenario a step further and placing his characters in hell directly. Even though the three characters in the play are located in a physical hell, more emphasis is actually put on the inner hell that they cause each other through their interactions. This idea that we create our own hell is driven home by the fact that the “hell” they have been placed in is simply a small room with no mirrors or windows where they will spend eternity together. Even though the two works are separated by eighty years (Notes from the Underground in 1864 and No Exit in 1944) they share very similar views of the human condition; especially how it relates to the idea of “others”. Both philosophers made it a point to show the conflict of human interaction and give their characters personalities that reflect sado-masochistic tendencies.

            The alpha personalities in society are generally easy to pick out of the crowd, due to their natural drive to stand out amongst their contemporaries. These people also have the tendency to be leaders among their peers, collecting followers of omega personalities that covet their elevated status. The alpha personalities that maintain their status through the active oppression of others with weaker personalities, the omegas, can be seen as highly sadistic. A good example of this behavior can be found in Dostoevsky’s Underground Man. Although he is by no means strictly an alpha, he goes through intense character fluctuations throughout the story. There are points where his alpha mentality and the sadistic drive that accompanies it are blatantly clear. When he tells the reader about exercising authority over petitioners through his occupation he openly admits he “felt intense enjoyment when I succeeded in making anybody unhappy” (Dostoevsky, 2) and expresses anger towards one officer in particular who “simply would not be humble” (Dostoevsky, 2). The man wants to reign over the petitioners, to be the alpha, and to assert his authority, he resorts to making them miserable in any way he can. In No Exit this can also be seen when Inez and Garcin interact throughout the play. Since Garcin is also an alpha in many ways, Inez seems to feel that she must use sadistic methods in order to keep Garcin subjugated, so she resorts to flinging insults at him. At one point she mocks the exchange between Garcin and Estelle, “how obedient he is, like a well-trained dog who comes when his mistress calls.” (Sartre, 45). In the end, Garcin even decides to stay in hell with her because of her authoritative personality, believing only she can absolve him in some way; eventually conceding his alpha status to her at last (Sartre, 42-43).

            A less sadistic manifestation of an alpha personality can be expressed by passively oppressing the lower omega class. This is displayed by exclusion and expression of elitism. Instead of actively harming others, people with strong personalities who hold higher status simply ignore or avoid those who are too low on the scale of society to be of importance to them. While this form of alpha behavior can be sadistic in that it causes the omega pain through secondary sources, the amount of pleasure gained by the alpha is also less direct in that they may only gain pleasure from the reinforcement of their position rather than the suffering of the omega. Garcin, still in an alpha mindset at the beginning of No Exit, shows this passive approach towards the two women stating, “I shall never be your torturer. I wish neither of you any harm, and I’ve no concern for you” (Sartre, 17). By saying he has no concern for them at all, he asserts himself as an alpha because he doesn’t desire their attention, but a passive one because he also means them no harm. In Notes from the Underground we rarely see this pattern emerge in the sadistic main character, but his old school friends practice their authority in passive ways frequently. Passive oppression can be seen when Trudolyubov is said to simply tolerate or ignore the main character (Dostoevsky, 44) and during the whole dinner party scene where his schoolfellows (although not always successful) try their best to disregard his presence among them rather than actively forcing him to leave (Dostoevsky, 52-56).

            Turning away from the powerful pull of the alpha persona, let us explore the motivations behind the omegas, who are constantly hiding in the background of society and the shadows of those more assertive. Excepting inner moments of delusional grandeur, the Underground Man is an omega through and through. He is constantly questioning himself and finds himself unable to hold his ground amongst those with even the slightest authority, as his exchange with the officer shows (Dostoevsky, 35-38). He expresses the masochism of his state by mentioning, “whether I despised them or thought them superior I dropped my eyes almost every time I met anyone” (Dostoevsky, 30). He is comfortable in his submission and doesn’t even try to make his life otherwise, so therefore he must in some way enjoy the pain his lowliness causes him. Omegas lack the strong will that alphas possess, so they often desire to be around those who impress them perhaps hoping to steal some of their host’s glory for themselves while enduring the sadistic side the alphas often express. Estelle is the one in No Exit who best exemplifies this personality; she is always seeking approval from the other two, although she’s willing to submit more readily to Garcin due to his gender. She is made very nervous by worrying about the approval of Inez and Garcin, as she shows when Inez volunteers to be her mirror (Sartre, 20-22). Throughout the play she grovels for approval from Garcin, even though he treats her terribly by alternately ignoring her and objectifying her (Sartre, 33-36).

            Then again, most omegas are simply not content to stay groveling in their detested state and at those points they attempt to rise to an alpha status. This desire to elevate themselves keeps them in between the two states and is where many people often stay, vacillating between the extremes in a sado-masochistic struggle. Since the ambitious omega needs leverage to keep some upward motion, they often resort to sadistic treatment of others around them. The Underground Man sees himself in this struggle when he thinks of how others must view him, “You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt” (Dostoevsky, 26). He shows an even stronger example of the masochistic side to this struggle again when he is at the dinner party. Although before he goes he seems to be plotting to become the dominant member of the group (Dostoevsky, 48), when he is actually among them he offends the others with his remarks and even after his plan fails, he forces himself to remain there in agony so as not to retreat from them (Dostoevsky, 54). Garcin also goes through this inner struggle. He is the alpha in the beginning, which is when he is the least sadistic towards the two women, even allowing them to make demands by keeping his jacket on and switching couches (Sartre, 11-13). When he must contend with Inez to keep his status is when his personality begins changing and, as mentioned previously, he starts to act with some hostility towards the women. He also becomes more masochistic as he slips into an omega role, seeing himself as a coward and practically begging Estelle to tell him otherwise (Sartre, 39-40).

            Where is it that all of this strife gets the omegas? They end up in a hell created by their doubts and shortcomings. For Sartre, this hell is a very real possibility while Dostoevsky only puts his character in the hell of his mind. The omega is constantly aware of his shortcomings and low position in society, which is intensified by the longing to become equal in the eyes of the upper class. They want the benefits that the alphas receive from their status but are unable to rise above their self doubt to grasp those privileges for themselves. The Underground Man brings light to these desires by writing of those feelings, “I knew that they had been swarming in me all my life and craving some outlet from me, but I would not let them…They tormented me till I was ashamed: they drove me to convulsions and—sickened me” (Dostoevsky, 2). For the characters in No Exit this idea of personal hell created through submitting to the will of others is far more concrete because they are actually in hell throughout the play. Their hell is others (Sartre, 45). “The underground life is more advantageous…Oh, but even now I am lying! I am lying because I know myself that it is not the underground that is better,” (Dostoevsky, 25-26) the Underground Man proclaims, the underground seemingly where he places the exact location of his hell rather than labeling it correctly in his mind. All have a chance to escape this psychological prison, but the presence of other people has chained them there, they have become slaves to the interactions of society. Instead of nurturing their independence, they cling to their efforts to find a fitting place for them in the world.

            Alphas, though one may not think it, are also engulfed by a hellish state at times. Inez says herself to Estelle, “I’m always conscious of myself—in my mind. Painfully conscious.” (Sartre, 19). Even the sadistic become unsure of themselves around others, which leads them on a self-destructive thought process of doubting their own elite status. Granted, compared to the hell endured by the omegas this may seem a fair trade, but suffering is suffering any way it’s encountered. In a state of egotistical superiority, the Underground Man is still very conscious of his shortcomings as well, “in that acutely recognized and yet partly doubtful hopelessness of one’s position, in that hell of unsatisfied desires turned inward, in that fever of oscillations” (Dostoevsky, 7) is where he remains even in his feigned confidence. Practically every time an alpha encounters a new person, they must look inward as they look outward at their rival, struggling to find their social hierarchy as quickly as they can. With every new face brings the uncertainty of remaining in their current comfortable position, because they are forced to reckon with other alpha personalities on a continual basis.

            So, one can conclude that because of the countless people humans must encounter in their lives, they are in a constant state of fluctuation in reference to their individual status. It is hard for one to cope with being excluded from society and most have a strong wish for respect and power in their lives. When everyone has such a desire it creates inner conflict as one tries to obtain what they want, while also inciting conflicts with others trying to reach the same goal. People constantly cause themselves and others pain by what are perceived as simple interactions and accidents, but if one looks closer it is easy to see where this viciousness stems from and process that will cause it to repeat itself.

Facts show what the world really is. It is a fact that predator go after their prey and not the other way around. It is a fact that Beijing is the capital of China, because there is such a city that is the capital of China. And for the majority of the facts, the objects are there to render them factual.

But moral laws are not facts. They do not have physical characteristics that can be observed to make them true. It is because moral laws are not descriptive but prescriptive; they are made up of commands. And since moral laws have the form of commands, they tell us what ought to be done.

If they are commands, there has to be a commander. A command cannot exist without a commander. And since moral laws are commands, the question comes, “who is it that commands us to act morally?” or “who commands morality?” To respond to this question, the moral argument proposes that we evaluate the importance of morality.

Morality is of prime value in the world we live in. If we are morally obligated to do something, this would essentially take precedence over any other factors coming into play. If one is motivated to get a thing done but morally ought to get some other thing done, then he should be doing the other thing after all factors are taken into consideration. To cite an example: it might be in my interest not to aid someone in need, but morally I should when all things have been taken into account. Morality overrides everything else; it is essentially authoritative.

Commands are only as authoritative as the commanding person. If I were to command everybody to pay additional tax for the purpose of building public roads and highways, nobody would be obligated to obey me. However, if the state imposed the tax, it would be a totally different story, since it does have the authority to do so. So it is with morality.

As morality has definitely more influence than any individual or institution over our actions, the moral argument argues, moral laws could not have been commanded by any individual or institution. As morality supersedes everything else, it must have been commanded by a being who exercises authority over all things. The existence of morality therefore directs us to someone far more superior than we are and who reigns over all creation.

Mankind has a virtuous nature. They seem to have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. There is a general belief that we will one day all be held accountable for who we are and what we do. The Creator of our moral nature mustbe a higher, moral Being who is aware of good and evil, and who rewards the good and penalizes evil. Of course, that Being is God who inspires holiness in those created in His image. As the Holy Scripture states, “He is glorious in holiness” (Exodus 15:11). And according to the late reformed Baptist preacher Ferrell Griswold, “Holiness belongs to God originally. He is the source and fountain of all holiness. Any holiness seen in the creature is from Him. Holiness belongs to God underivatively. It being original with Him is derived from no one, or thing. Even when God dwelt alone He was the great Holy One. Holiness belongs unto God perfectly. All holiness that is within the creature has a flaw, but in God it is infinitely perfect, with nothing being added unto it. Holiness belongs to God immutably. He always has been, He ever will be the Holy One.”

Based on this argument, there could be no morality apart from God. A quotation ascribed to the famous 19th century Russian author Feodor Dostoevsky states, “If there is no God, then all things are permissible.” And the fact that moral law exists, then not all things are permissible, attest to the existence of God.