Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Moral relativism wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Madeleine Chercover Mr. Robertson Block F April 20th, 2012 English 11/12 Term Paper: Hamlet’s Delay ! The necessity to make decisions in life is a given; the majority of such choices, evident and simple, are made in passing. Decisions, however, where each option entails a sacrifice and no choice appears clear are the ones deeply agonized over. The weighing of each sacrifice is such a struggle that the decision-maker incessantly delays the moment at which they will finally choose. In William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Hamlet, too, grapples with his options. He may either satisfy his sense of loyalty and seek revenge on behalf of his father, or he may stay true to his sense of ethics and abstain. Hamlet delays due to his attempts to simultaneously fulfill, rather than sacrifice, these two conflicting concepts of honour: that of duty and that of morality and conscience. To remain honourable in both respects essentially entails inaction. In order to be a man of honour, Hamlet has no choice but to delay. ! Hamlet and his struggle with honour were written in the context of Elizabethan England; the 17th century was at a crossroads where a more modern, moral and “medieval chivalric” (1070 Terry) concept of honour were simultaneously emphasized. This twofold code of honour “created tensions of its own [...] because of its demand that men act both in accordance to the dictates of their conscience and their duty to the state” (1072 Terry). Such tensions encapsulate the inner conflict Hamlet faces. Indeed Hamlet’s tragedy is not, in fact, his own indecisiveness, but the values of the era he lives in: “he is forced to attempt to balance these ‘rival ethical legacies’ as he struggles to remain honorable” (1075 Terry). In order to achieve this balance, Hamlet acknowledges that there is a decision to be made but delays taking any action. By recognizing that revenge on behalf of his father is necessary, Hamlet fulfills his sense of duty, while taking no such action preserves his conscience. Only those, such as Laertes, who deliberately cast aside one of the two concepts of honour are actually able to act: “Conscience and grace to the profoundest pit! [...] Only I’ll be revenged / Most thoroughly for my father” (4.5.128,133-134). For Hamlet, however, to take action while staying true to both morality and duty proves impossible. Consequently, he is incapacitated into taking no decisive action whatsoever. ! A climate of irresolution pervaded 17th century Europe. While Hamlet’s inability to make a decision may come across as unique, in actuality, “Shakespeare modelled him on a man who [...] epitomised the very best of Elizabethan England” (147 Asquith). Indeed, Englishmen of the time were “caught in an agony of indecision.” Many hoped that, despite refraining from resolution and the action it would require, an outcome would come to pass nonetheless. Jasper Heywood’s poem, “The Lookers-on,” tells of men who would make no judgement in order to “have the fruit, yet [be] free from blame” (147 Asquith). Hamlet is of the same mindset. By no means is he against the exacting of vengeance on Claudius; his problem lies in the fact that he is the one to carry out justice. Hamlet laments, “O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!” (1.5.188-189). He acknowledges that the exacting of revenge on behalf of his father is the “right” and honourable thing to do. However, such action would defy Hamlet’s conscience, so he delays with the hope that the desired outcome will be brought about by others. To delay vengeance against his uncle, all the while acknowledging that action is imperative, allows Hamlet to conserve the two notions of honour; any action taken by Hamlet upsets this preservation of his morality. Thus whenever Hamlet postpones his revenge, he acts towards the conservation of his honour. ! Vengeance is a theme found in several of Shakespeare’s plays. Hamlet can be contrasted with the play, Titus Andronicus, where a son faces a similar situation to that of Hamlet; he seeks vengeance on behalf of his father. However, for this son, the decision to avenge is simple: “Can the son’s eye behold his father bleed? / There’s meed for meed, death for deadly deed!” (5.3.64-65). His diction and reasoning is similar to that of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”: every wrongdoing has a clear and equal repercussion. Hamlet complicates this straightforward rationale by looking beyond the act of revenge and his familial duty, to morality and to what will be after the act of vengeance has been committed. He understands that vengeance would be honourable in the sense of duty, but in the form of morality, his honour would be irreclaimable. Indeed while exacting revenge may provide Hamlet a “source of emotional gratification” afterwards, there would remain little “ethical distinction” (167 McEachern) between Claudius and him. The duty of vengeance and the immorality of murder come into direct conflict, showing clearly that the two codes of honour cannot coexist and a choice must be made. Such is the decision Hamlet faces and his avoidance of the sacrifice of his morality is the reason for delay; in order to carry out a deliberate revenge on Claudius, and fully appreciate the outcome, he must no longer place any value on his moral notion of honour. He does just that as he stands before Fortinbras’ soldiers and exclaims, “O, from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!” (4.4.65-66). Hamlet thus lets go of the notion of conscientious honour and relinquishes himself to being a honourable man, one who fulfills his duty to his blood relations. With this declaration and relinquishment, there is no longer reason for delay and Hamlet accepts the conclusion he has been bound for all the while: revenge. ! ! Hamlet’s relinquishment of moral honour opens up the way for the events of vengeance to transpire and as consequence, Hamlet’s “common destruction” (36 Bloom). Before the duel with Laertes, Horatio entreaties Hamlet, “if your mind”, or conscience, “dislike anything, obey it” (5.2.218). However, having resigned from his attempts to preserve his conscientious honour, Hamlet may now accept whatever is to come as a duty to his father and thereby says, “let be” (5.2.225). With one notion of honour now sacrificed, there is no longer reason for vengeance to be delayed. For most, revenge is a triumphant act of justice. Yet Hamlet refers to the impending vengeance with regret, saying, “thou wouldst not think how ill all’s here about my heart. But it is no matter” (5.2.213-214). Indeed Hamlet appears to be more of “an instrument than an agent” (31 Bloom), as though he is but solemnly carrying out his charge. He finds himself with his sense of moral honour relinquished and only his dutiful honour left to adhere to. Thus no course of action remains but for him to follow through with his obligation and in doing so, be murdered amongst the “general ruin” (36 Bloom). These series of events, though tragic, come naturally as Hamlet halts his efforts to balance two notions of honour by way of delay. He need not contemplate the moral implications of every action and instead, his life progresses down a single path. ! In renouncing his moral honour, Hamlet sacrifices himself to his duty. Delay was a means of gripping to his conscience and judgement but all the while Hamlet understood that his two notions of honour, duty and morality, could not coexist in perpetuity. Despite his initial reluctance, once Hamlet resolved to commit himself to his duty, he followed that path to its end. Work Cited Asquith, Clare. Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William ! Shakespeare. New York: PublicAffairs, 2005. Print. Bloom, Harold. Wi"iam Shakespeare's Hamlet. New York: Chelsea House, 1996. Print. McEachern, Claire. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy. Cambridge, U.K.: ! Cambridge UP, 2003. Print. Terry, Reta A. “‘Vows to the Blackest Devil’: Hamlet and the Evolving Code of Honor in ! Early Modern England." Renaissance Quarterly 52.4 (1999): 1070-086. Print.