In Dostoevsky's work, the Inquisitor presents his case with many wordy arguments. He cleverly discusses the issue of Catholicism, the freedom inherent in oppression and the joy and peace of submission to the iron will of another. The Inquisitor speaks from the position of a dictator; an entity with absolute power. As a person involved with an absolutely powerful institution at the time, the Church, he is obviously not willing to relinquish such power. Hence he attempts to justify his arguments with a focus upon the happiness of those under him.
             On the other hand, the Inquisitor may believe his case to be sincere. Being indoctrinated since birth with the opinions he holds as truth, it is hardly surprising that he believes people can only be happy when their freedom of thought is taken away. Indeed, he claims this removal of freedom to be the choice of the oppressed themselves. The Inquisition is then used as a tool to demonstrate to those who are oppressed what would happen if they would dare to disagree with what they are told by authority figures. This returns to the issue of power and oppression. The Church, having ultimate power, wishes to retain it. As an emissary of the Church, the Inquisitor wishes to do so as well.
             In this, the Inquisitor speaks from the belief that human beings are like sheep, who enjoy life most when mindlessly following a leader. This raises the question of happiness. For the Inquisitor, happiness is of course his own wealth and power. He assumes happiness for subordinates to be in their very subordination. As such, he justifies himself by claiming to want happiness for all persons in a peaceful society.
             I believe that the Inquisitor is hypocritical, although he does not necessarily know this. As mentioned, the indoctrination and power of the Church during the time was extreme. It was difficult and often fatal to disagree. The Inquisitor has used this to his advantage and gained...