The Morality Of Revenge In Shakespeare's Hamlet

Often, people assume the best way to move forward solely includes crossing the bridge once they come to it, disregarding the steps it takes to reach the bridge in the first place. Sometimes this may not be the situation, especially when people come from different situations. One person might not need to worry about overcoming their obstacles while others struggle to reach the foothill of success. This case of unequal privilege can cause some to fall behind those with obvious advantages (connections, finances, etc.) However, upon reaching the peak, both celebrate different feats; One celebrates his achievement while the other celebrates his overcoming of his original setbacks to achieve the same goal and yet, can celebrate achieving even more

Though one person may have a head start, finishing at the same time as one who didn’t simply shows a discrepancy of talent for the sport. Though Laertes’s passion pushes him to extremes and allows him the strength and motivation to enact revenge, Hamlet’s loyalty and sovereignty of logic prevents his deterring from a course of action and makes him better suited for revenge in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. When given reason to act with vengeance, both Hamlet and Laertes consider their courses of action in considerably different ways- Laertes with quick, hasty planning and Hamlet with brooding certainty- thus dictating the true success of their respective missions. Upon learning of the death of his father, stating, “Hadst thou thy wits, and didst persuade revenge/ It could not move thus”, Laertes displays his quickness of temper and lack of deliberate contemplation in his deciding to avenge the death of Polonius as his duty. His immediate thought, to kill or wound the murderer, proves him ill-suited for the act of revenge in comparison to Hamlet, whose depth of reasoning allows him to carefully plot his course of action most efficiently and preserves his best interests