Hamlet and Laertes

Ethics are usually straightforward and clear. Whether or not they are observed, one usually knows whether what they are doing is right or wrong. However, sometimes they are skewed due to circumstance. On occasions, it is possible to justify seemingly heinous crimes such as deceit and murder in the name of values that are more righteous than the crime is wicked. In William Shakespeares Hamlet, there is a perfect example of how ethics can become skewed due to character circumstance. Two characters, Hamlet and Laertes, are confronted with similar situations and respond in different ways. They differ in their views towards vengeance, their sense of their personal honor, and analysis of their respective situations, and how these situations change the application of ethics. Before the play begins, Old Hamlet is murdered by his brother Claudius, who then takes Queen Gertrude as his wife. The death of his father and the quick remarriage of his mother cause Hamlet much grief. Later in the play, Laertess father, Polonius, is mistakenly killed by Hamlet, who believed him to be Claudius. Hamlet delays action throughout the entire play, and even passes on the perfect opportunity to kill his fathers murderer and take his vengeance. Hamlet has some players put on a show similar to his fathers killing in an attempt to draw a guilty reaction from the new King. The plan works flawlessly, as he stands and leaves the room in the middle of the play. Hamlet has now confirmed the guilt of his uncle, and enters the church to find the fiend praying. He draws his sword, and is prepared to do the deed, but instead he says; Now I might do it, now he is a-praying//And now Ill dot. And so he goes to heaven// and so am I revenged. That would be scanned:// A villain kills my father, and for that, // I his sole son, do this same villain send// to heaven (III.iii.77-83) Hamlet then resolves that he will not kill Claudius

while he is praying, but rather while he is sinning, so he is sure to be thrust down into hell. This is perhaps as a result of what the ghost told him, that his father suffers in purgatory because he was slain before he could make his last confessions (I.v.80-86), so Hamlet feels that in order to exact revenge, he must ensure the same postmortal fate for the villain that killed his father. Laertes, on the other hand, shows no such thought about the afterlife. When Claudius asks what he is willing to do to obtain vengeance, his response shows the exact opposite thought process as Hamlets: To cut his throat in the church (IV.vii.144). Laertes is not concerned about where the killer of his father will go, but simply that the vengeance is taken and his life ends. Some may argue this by pointing out that Hamlet was at first unaware that his fathers death was a murder, and it is unfair to compare in this situation. However, it should be remembered that Hamlet not only delays his reaction, but he even delays finding out whether the King is guilty. The ghost tells him in act 1 and it is not until act 3 that Hamlet does anything productive in avenging the death of his father. Hamlet is instead very cautious and overthinks everything about his plan, which leads to a diminishing of his resolve, and as a result, self-pity and anguish. Another contrast in the men is their sense of honor. Early in the play, Gertrude and Claudius seem puzzled at Hamlets grief over the death of his father because they find it to be excessive, although in the context of society in Denmark, Hamlet is perfectly justified while the King and Queen fall short of what is expected as far as mourning. While this is going on, Claudius takes a serious stab at Hamlet: tis unmanly grief. It shows a will most incorrect to heaven (I.ii.98-99) another fun fact about Danish society is that a man does not challenge the manhood of another man without expecting a duel.

However, Hamlet does not challenge Claudius at all, instead he agrees to seem happier as the Queen suggests, and when they leave he has a soliloquy about how sad he is and how he feels alone in his pain. Laertes, on the other hand, has no such reservations about honor. He is about to duel Hamlet in the final scene of the play, and he has an unblunted, poisoned sword to kill him with. Hamlet offers an apology to Laertes for having wronged him. Laertes responds thusly: I am satisfied in nature//Whose motive in this case should stir me most// to my revenge; but in my terms of honor// I stand aloof and will no reconcilement// Till by some elder masters of known honor// I have a voice and precedent of peace// to keep my name ungored. (V.ii.259-265) Laertes allows honor to dictate his actions, but he only does so when convenient for him. In this case, he has an unblunted sword with a poisoned blade. This is cheating, which is much less than honorable. Hamlet sees this as a duel for honor and sport, while Laertes means to kill the unsuspecting Hamlet. This is neither honorable nor gentlemanly, so it is obvious that Laertess honor has its limitations.

Body Paragraph 3: Topic: Hamlet and Laertes differ in how much they think before they act Evidence: paraphrase Hamlets to be or not to be (III.i.64-98) commentary- over thinking everything Quote Laertes O thou vile King// Give me my father! (IV.v.126-127) Commentary- He has no evidence that it is Claudius, yet he is prepared to do battle with him the second he enters the castle. It could be argues that he is rash, the polar opposite of Hamlet.