Revenge vs. Justice

310 Words2 Pages
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, several different outcomes could have occurred if Hamlet had changed his actions near the beginning of the play. What would have happened if Hamlet had sought justice instead of revenge? What differences would have occurred if Hamlet did not insist on payback and just focused on what was fair? King Hamlet’s brother Claudius has inherited the throne and married the king’s widow, Queen Gertrude. King Hamlet’s ghost ordered Hamlet to seek revenge. Does that mean Hamlet is obligated to do it? In order for Hamlet to seek revenge, he must kill Claudius. To restore justice, what must he do? Could he expose Claudius' actions to everyone and so he serves his rightful punishment? Many different methods could have been used to restore justice in Denmark instead of getting revenge. Not only could he reveal his uncle, but also his mother that he discovers problematic. He does indeed finally kill his uncle after his mother has been poisoned, but only becomes the king long enough to label his replacement as he is dying at the time he slayed Claudius. This great play was a tragedy; but Hamlet had an opportunity to seek justice and finally become king himself. Almost everyone is dead at the end of the play. So one could say that Hamlet did not actually get the revenge that he wanted. This play could have been a delighted story if Hamlet sought justice; instead he was essentially forced to seek revenged for his father and everything ended up into a bloody mess at the end. Other main characters during the middle of the story would not have been killed either. Hamlet had a choice, and he chose the hard way. If Hamlet could have gone back and do it all over, I am sure he would have not gone to the extreme that he

More about Revenge vs. Justice

Open Document