Hamlet Justice And Revenge Analysis

1412 Words 6 Pages
Justice and revenge are two related concepts that are based on actions in response to a person committing a wrongdoing. The deciding factor of whether the actions reflect justice or revenge mainly rely on the emotional and moral standpoint of the person seeking justice. Justice is usually based on logic, and the main motivation does not develop solely through emotions. Actions done while one is seeking justice are typically seen as morally justifiable; people seeking justice are not acting from a place of malice, but rather from a place demanding the acknowledgment of an unjustifiable act that was committed. Revenge, on the other hand, is typically derived from negative and spiteful emotions. Acts committed in the name of revenge are usually …show more content…
In the beginning of these two plays, each character is faced with death. Titus Andronicus, an immoral character, begins with the murder the son of a war prisoner along with his own son. Conversely, Hamlet begins on a moral high ground and in turmoil over the suspicious death of his father. The juxtaposition of where these two characters begin morally is an important factor in considering whether their final actions were out of justice or revenge. Considering that Titus begins the play in shifting sands with the other characters, it almost makes the heinous acts committed against his daughter, inciting his quest for justice, foreseeable. His initial actions do not excuse what was happened to Lavinia but make the actions committed against her less surprising. Hamlet does not start the play in any sort of moral turmoil, in fact throughout the whole play he struggles with avenging his father’s death because of how regards himself morally. Hamlet nor his father prompted Claudius into murdering Hamlet’s father, for this reason it allows Hamlet’s actions at the end to seem more justified. The initial moral standpoint of these characters shapes the first view the readers get of these characters and ultimately helps decide the whether these characters ultimate actions to be out of justice or out of …show more content…
Both Titus and Hamlet have specific points in the play where is it evident that their actions are not solely to avenge a wrongdoing, but for personal gain. In the beginning of the play Titus kills his own son, Mutius, and war prisoner, Alarbus, solely because he has the power and ability to; both murders were essentially senseless killings. Titus, towards the end of the play, also murders his daughter to put her out of her misery, but also to save himself from the shame he feels when he sees her. Hamlet, amid a mental breakdown, murders Polonius who is an innocent bystander in the murder of his father. We could excuse this murder as Hamlet believed that Polonius hidden behind a curtain was his instead intended target, Claudius, but once Hamlet realizes who he murdered he shows no remorse. Hamlet also avoids killing Claudius while he was praying, to ensure that Claudius will go to hell and suffer eternally. Hamlet at the beginning of the play is even told by his father to only avenge his death by killing Claudius, not to ensure that Claudius goes to hell and suffers. Hamlets train of thought at this point highlights that these actions are not only to avenge his father’s death but to get gratification that his uncle will go to hell and suffer even more for his actions; this scene demonstrates the scene in which Hamlet’s ultimate emotional and

Related Documents