Gandhi was once quoted “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” What if that was the only way to end mass murders. Part of the action in Beowulf holds a stance for the few exceptions in the world. If a man commit murder and officials cannot stop him by force and the only way to stop him is by murder, then is that not two wrongs? If the sacrifice of man can be stopped with a wrong, then what is so wrong with that. This gives the viewpoint that Beowulf had a right to kill the dragon, although the dragon was the first victim. Wiglaf being his murder assistant should stay named a hero. He may have made the world blind, but he saved it from destruction. Beowulf was notified that there was a dragon who was “fired” up about a certain thief. To view the facts, the dragon had a precious piece of gold stolen. He was correct to feel upset over the crime committed against him. The relentless beasts later actions to assassinate villages was then the cause of his deserved death. Admitting without the thief’s crime, the citizens would be alive, but their death is not to blame on the thief. This guilt is to only be blamed on the scaley …show more content…
Murder is unacceptable according to the Bible, but as the epic was written in a time period that pagan views were still present, this idea was accepted. The idea of killing to bring about right was understood based on how important it was for that person to be terminated. Based on the greater good, Beowulf was expected to kill the dragon. In conclusion, Beowulf had a right to kill the dragon, even saying that the dragon was stolen from. When looking at the bigger picture, Wiglaf and Beowulf were heroic in their actions. “Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts do.” This captures the idea that people should not commit a wrong doing to another wrongdoer, but that when lives are at stake, what needs to be done must be