Analysis of Hamlet's Morality Essay Example

To murder or not to murder, that is the question. The morality of killing human beings (for any reason) is one of the great considerations of any system of morality. This was especially true in the Elizabethan era in which moral philosophy connected to a Christian dominated life. In William Shakespere’s play Hamlet the titular character is pulled in twain by his commitment to the moral teachings of his religion and his desire to avenge the murder of his father. Hamlet’s conflict over the morality of killing his father’s murderer illuminates the larger theme of the existence of grey areas in morality and action. 

Christian ideologies and scripture play strong roles in Hamlet’s moral compass, even before he learns of his father’s murder. Hamlet begins the play in anguish over his father’s death, contemplating suicide and only halting because Christian theology would damn him to hell for the action. Hamlet laments, “O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,/Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,/Or that the Everlasting had not fixed/His canon ‘gainst (self-slaughter!)” (I; ii, 133-136) Hamlet is focused on his desire for his own demise, yet he never loses focus of the Christian scripture that has been drilled into him. Thus even in the throes of an intense depression, Hamlet’s devotion to religion is solid. In this moment, even though Hamlet has justifiable reason to commit suicide, he views this sin as unacceptable. 

Hamlet’s religiously guided moral ideology is challenged after he learns of his father’s murder. The ghost of old king Hamlet appears to Hamlet bringing knowledge that Claudius killed him. Hamlet is initially full of vengeful thoughts but later tempers them and decides to try and determine the truth of the ghost’s assertion with the help of the players “Play something like the murder of my father/Before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks;/I’ll tent him to the quick. If he do blench,/I know my course. The spirit that I have seen/May be a (devil,) and the (devil) hath power/T’assume a pleasing shape;” (II; ii, 624-629). As part of Hamlet’s attempt to justify his revenge in line with his religious teachings, he emphasizes that the ghost could be biblical in nature as a disguised devil intending to lead him astray. By acquiring more proof beyond just the word of his father’s ghost, Hamlet is trying to rectify the teaching that murder is sin with his specific circumstance in which he believes murder is justifiable. These reassurances reflect Hamlet’s attempt to determine his own views and beliefs over whether or not the sin of murder is justifiable in specific circumstances. 

While Hamlet spends ample time in his debates over whether or not his revenge on Claudius is sinful, he spends much less time in his grappling with his murder of Polonius, Rozencrantz, and Guildenstern. After learning of his old friends’ duplition Hamlet sentences them to death by proxy, sending them with a letter “And stand a comma ’tween their amities/And many suchlike “as’s” of great charge,/That, on the view and knowing of these contents, /Without debatement further, more or less,/He should the bearers put to sudden death,/Not shriving time allowed.” (V; ii, 49-51). While Hamlet would have been at the mercy of the same treatment as he eventually sent his peers into, he still murders them by proxy with seemingly no qualms. In fact he giddily shares these details with Horatio. This is mirrored by his murder of Polonius in which he shows only a small amount of remorse. While Hamlet’s lack of consideration about his murder of Polonius might be justified as he had already prepared himself to kill someone (Claudius) in that moment, his lack of consideration about Rozencrantz and Guildenstern is less so. Hamlet allows himself to be so caught up in his thirst for revenge, and thus his justification process for that specific revenge he loses sight of the larger moral quandaries that he ought to be addressing. 

Hamlet’s final moments are filled with both vindication and tragedy as he finally realizes the lack of an absolute morality. Hamlet is poisoned by a fencing blade and in turn uses the same blade to finally kill Claudius and avenge the death of his father. As Hamlet lay dying he knows that while he has killed several people he felt justified in his actions. He also knows that to any outsider his actions are not so clear cut and thus he charges the steadfast Horatio with disseminating the truth of what has befallen Denmark, saying “But let it be. -Horatio, I am dead./Thou livest; report me and my cause aright/To the unsatisfied.” (V; ii, 370-372). In this line Hamlet charges Horatio to assert what Hamlet has learned to the rest of the world–killing can be justified, morality is not black and white.

Hamlet, in William Shakespere’s Hamlet grapples with his desire to stay true to his Christian morality, while also avenging the murder of his father. This conflict reflects the greater theme of when killing a human being is morally justifiable, and the existence of grey areas of morality. While Hamlet’s view of others' murderous deeds is stalwart, his view of his own is dependent on his own ability to justify his killings as without sin. This fallacy of Hamlet reflects that of society. Humans hold rigid rules for others, but allow those same rules to bend and stretch when applied to the self.