Saturday, December 7, 2019
Is Hamlet's Revenge Acceptable?
Hamlet is ultimately a tale of revenge in which a child is given an almost divine quest to kill the man that poisoned his father, and thus avenge his death. While it is certainly reprehensible to kill one's own brother to usurp the throne, is it ethical for Hamlet to slay his father's slayer? I would say no, simply because I believe that execution is unethical in all cases. However, it does make logical sense for Hamlet to kill Claudius as he is doing what the Danish justice system should have done anyway. Killing the leader of a country is practically the textbook definition of treason which is, in most cases, a capital offense, so it makes sense for Hamlet to pick up the slack and deliver "justice," as determined by the Danes. This leads me to ask the question, Do you believe that Hamlet's quest is justifiable either morally or logically?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In my personal opinion, murder is never justifiable regardless if revenge is involved. First off, this revenge is based on madness and irrational behavior. Hamlet isn’t even positive that the ghost was telling him the truth or was actually there. Also, I keep getting the feeling that Hamlet doesn’t even want to follow through with his revenge. He feels morally responsible because his father, was wronged, but he truly does not want to kill anyone. It’s taken him this long, and all he seems to do is talk about his madness and desire to die. He hasn’t shown any action towards following up with this plan and the only reason he's even considering it is because he feels responsible for protecting his father's throne from toxicity.
Post a Comment