Was Hamlet's Quest For Revenge Justified

One of the most debatable questions regarding the main character of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is whether the main character Hamlet’s quest for revenge was justifiable in terms of the situation presented. Hamlet’s father had recently been killed by Hamlet’s uncle Claudius, who then expected the role of king of Denmark. In Act I, scene iv-v, Hamlet is approached by the ghost of his father; the ghost arises and obligates Hamlet to revenge his death. Throughout the novel, Hamlet decisively strategizes this revenge; however, his plans are constantly delayed due to emotional, ethical, and psychological factors. With this, Hamlet still gains his revenge; consequently, he is murdered as well. Some argue that Hamlet’s revenge is completely justifiable; “Hamlet has an obligation, as an honorable son, to avenge his father’s death.” Hamlet’s quest cannot be justified: ideally, Hamlet should trust his religious views to let God deal with Claudius; in addition, Hamlet influences the deaths of major characters including Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Laertes, and his own mother Gertrude.

Hamlet is influenced by the 16th century religious movements; the Protestant Reformation splintered Catholic Europe and furthermore affected Christian beliefs of morality and afterlife. Knowing this, Hamlet’s religious position seemingly contradict the actions he took in the climax of the novel. The climax shows how Shakespeare uses religion to create the idea about the church, and he emphasizes the value of morals by punishing sinners with death. Furthermore, it is obvious that the wise idea in Hamlet’s situation is to trust his instincts about Christianity, and let God decide the fate of Claudius to prevent the disastrous ending to the novel. Since Hamlet couldn’t resist his temptations, he ultimately caused the deaths of major