Introduction
The confrontation of good and evil is a common theme in fictional literature. The author uses narration to introduce heroes and villains to readers, prompting them to elaborate on the morality and justification of the character’s actions. In the case of Beowulf‘s characters Beowulf and Grendel, the distinction between good and evil might seem obvious at first glance. However, the final interpretation can vary depending on the dominant societal paradigm.
Moral Absolutism
The concept of good and evil has a genuinely long history in human culture. Such a dualistic approach to decision-making has been the subject of attention mainly within philosophy, ethics, morality, and religion studies since these disciplines’ inception. Often referred to as moral absolutism, this concept can be applied to any case or situation, categorizing its associated factors into “good” and “bad.” As time passed, however, the concept steadily grew less reliable. During the premodern, when religion had an overwhelming influence on society, people had a solid point of reference for labeling – God’s will. The situation changed in the modern era when technological advances elevated science over religion. The idea of the ultimate truth registered respective changes – it required to be proved. Finally, the postmodern vision rendered moral absolutism highly context-reliant. In other words, the context of the situation, such as the excerpt from Grendel’s point of view in the Beowulf story, can influence the attribution of good and evil.
Moral Absolutism in Beowulf
Within the Beowulf story, the moral analysis of Beowulf and Grendel will yield different results based on the point of reference. In light of its contemporary perspective, Beowulf is “definitely good,” and Grendel is “definitely bad.” From the modern perspective, one should look for the reasoning behind the characters’ actions. Beowulf acted to protect common people from the danger Grendel posed. In turn, Grendel killed people, justifying his actions as a manifestation of his new self, which cannot be considered “good.” However, one can sympathize with such a poor outcome on Grendel’s part once one knows the causes behind his transformation. In the meantime, the postmodernist view implies there are two ways good and evil can be attributed to characters in the story. From Beowulf’s perspective, he brings relief to the people of the Hrothgar kingdom; thus, Beowulf is good, and Grendel is evil. Conversely, human society not only rejected Grendel but also tried to harm it, making them evil in Grendel’s eyes because of their ignorance and lack of empathy.
Conclusion
The attribution of good and evil to Beowulf‘s characters depends on the era in which moral absolutism is applied. Premodern moral absolutism uses God’s will as a point of reference, making Grendel a definite villain in the story due to the harm it brings to people. In turn, modern moral absolutism agrees with its older counterpart; however, it also implies that Grendel’s actions have a sort of justification behind them. Finally, postmodern moral absolutism states that Beowulf and Grendel can both be heroes and villains, depending on their perspectives.