Research paper topics and methodologies

Caspian Good Evil

Good and Evil in Prince Caspian

There are many instances of good and evil in Prince Caspian and throughout the books of the Narnia series, yet in many cases the actual machinations of good and evil and the manners in which they come into being are more subtle and complex than they may appear. Interestingly, the dictionary defines good as both an adjective meaning morally excellent and a noun meaning moral excellence -- it is the act of having a quality, in a sense, as well as the actual quality or virtue itself (Dictionary.com 2011). Evil, on the other hand, is defined as morally wrong (an adjective) or as something that is morally wrong (a noun) -- not the actual "wrongness" itself, and thus not a true opposite to the "object" of virtue that good is, but rather the person/thing/event that possesses an evil quality (Dictionary.com 2011). Good, then, is a more intrinsic and tangible quality, while evil is a more ephemeral and elusive substance that must be chosen and adopted, but is not inborn and inseparable.

In Prince Caspian, this becomes clear as the differences between good and evil are revealed more through intentions rather than actions themselves, and this is also how justice is meted out in the novel. A major example of this is Peter, who actually causes many deaths to his own people by leading an attack on the castle. According to a philosopher like Kant, who believed in moral absolutes, then what Peter did was inherently wrong and unjustifiable simply because of the result (Johnson 2008). In the world of Prince Caspian, however, Peter is good, and remains good -- his decision to attack the castle was well-intended, however misguided. Kant's absolutism does not apply in this world.

This definitely suggests an agreement with the dictionary that evil, as presented in Prince Caspian, is not the inborn and inherent trait that Kant's absolutism seems to suggest it is, but rather that it is transient and dependent on circumstance. An example from the novel that is somewhat opposite to the previous example helps to confirm this interpretation. Glozelle, a high-ranking individual on the evil side of the war that takes place in the novel (these sides are clearly drawn in the frame provided by the author, and need not enter into the debate here), actually turns out to be somewhat helpful to the good side when he betrays and kills his master, the evil king and general Miraz. His intention is not to do away with this evil ruler and so restore good, however, but rather it is simply to take power of Miraz's former dominions himself, and to carry out the battle against his opponents. Killing Miraz is definitely considered a good act in the book -- it is one of the primary goals the good side is striving for -- but it is Glozelle's intentions rather than his actions that determine whether he is actually good or bad, and thus they determine his fate as well.