Most of us are evidently consequentialists, though we might not see it. Most people choose act in whatever way will produce the most favorable outcome. However, there are times when an individual may choose a course of action that is not respectable or morally sound.
In Shakespeare 's tragedy, "Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark", Hamlet is forced to rationally evaluate his situation and acts in the way he knows is morally right, although the resulting outcome is not beneficial to him or anyone else involved.
In order for a consequentialist to find Hamlet 's actions moral, they would have had to have been beneficial. When evaluated, it is evident that Hamlet 's consequences were in no way in line with consequentialism. Many suffered from Hamlet 's actions, but many also died, which almost automativally ranks Hamlet 's actions very low on the consequentialist morality scale.
The first death was that of our own king, Polonius. When Polonius is instructed by Claudius to spy on the inside conversation between Hamlet and Gertrude, Polonius mistakenly takes a comment
…show more content…
During the duel, essentially everyone is killed. As Laertes and Claudius plotted their revenge on Hamlet, they plan to offer him poisoned wine as a back up plan. When Hamlet simply objects to the chalice, the queen takes a sip to her son 's success. As Gertrude stoops to her death, she calls to Hamlet, "No, no! The drink, the drink! O my dear Hamlet! The drink, the drink! I am poisoned!"3 As the sword fight intensifies, Hamlet is wounded at the hand of Laertes ' poisoned sword. Hamlet uses the same sword to wound Laertes. As both are wounded by the same wepaon, Laertes confesses it is poisoned and neither of them will live more than thirty minutes. In a justifiable fit of rage, Hamlet thrusts the sword into Claudius, and forces him to drink from the poisoned wine so that Hamlet may be sure of his uncle 's death. Laertes dies trying to make amends with Hamlet, and shortly after, Hamlet 's life is