In his novel, ‘Darkness at Noon’, Arthur Koestler provides a tale of Rubashov, who he acclaims as the founding father of a party that is unnamed in a state that remains unnamed as well. He was put in jail by the current leader of the parry, named ‘number one’ and pressured to renounce the views of deviation that he had, Rubashov doesn’t give in. At the start, he has the resolution to face death and hence ensure that his integrity is preserved. In the later stages, Rubashov has to recognize that holding on to his own truth when it was a danger to the particular goals of the political reform was a political irresponsibility. He then progresses on and recants. The soldier who is aristocratic in nature in a neighboring cell is appalled by the self-betrayal that Rubashov puts himself through.…show more content… However, Rubashov is againt this opinion and mentions it to be an aristocratic idea of honoring oneself. Rubashov therefore underlines honor as decency as opposed to usefulness. Decency has to be replaced with reason. This paper uses these principle foundations that Koestler underlines in “Darkness at Noon” to explain what the author actually means by the concepts of 'anti-vivisection morality' and ‘grammatical fiction’ through a definition and description of these the concepts. I will also address why 'anti-vivisection morality' was incompatible with Stalinist Russia, and how the concept 'grammatical fiction applies to Stalinist Soviet Society. The instance for these ideas in Russian history/culture or whether they a uniquely Communist feature will be evaluated as