The morals of the time are defined by the principles that religion and the Bible at the time set forward, which also dictate social norms. Hamlet’s internal conflict about whether or not killing in revenge is morally excused, Leartus answer to that conflict, and the results of Claudius killing King Hamlet, all illuminate the meaning of the work as a whole: murder, greed, and revenge are sins, no matter the reason; and procrastination is very detrimental. The play also brings up the weight of one’s morality, the meaning of life, it’s complexities, and gives various advice that can be applied to everyday life.
The moral that murder is a sin, even if it is for revenge, is shown with Hamlet internal struggle throughout the play. He finally decides that when killing someone out of revenge, it is excused, but through Leartus, the author shows that murder is always a sin when Leartus immoral act of revenge backfires. He says: “I am justly killed with mine own treachery.” He admits that his plan for revenge was wrong and that he deserves his self-induced …show more content…
If he hadn’t killed King Hamlet, no one else in the play would have committed immoral actions. Claudius committed this act out of greed, which is one of the seven deadly sins. “That cannot be, since I am still possessed / Of those effects for which I did the murder: ‘My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen,” (Act 3, Scene 3, lines 54- 56). Claudius’ greed for the crown and the Queen, drives him to kill King Hamlet in the first place, which starts a domino effect of immoral acts. This demonstrates that greed is one of the seven deadly sins and is an immoral act, and they lead to all the deaths in the