How might Hamlet be seen as morally superior to Fortinbras and Laertes?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles
Unlike Laertes, Hamlet does not rush in to avenge his father's death without thinking it through carefully. He doesn't want to kill an innocent man at the behest of a ghost who may well have been sent by Satan to tempt him to become a murderer. Hamlet shows his moral fiber in testing the truth of the ghost's claims. In moving cautiously, he also doesn't allow himself to be manipulated.
Laertes, however, is simply bent on vengeance at any cost. He doesn't stop to think about extenuating circumstances or even if the rumors he has heard about Hamlet killing his father are true. (As it turns out, they are.) He simply wants blood. Laertes also allows himself to be manipulated by Claudius. Hamlet shows his moral superiority both through waiting to kill his uncle until he knows he is guilty and through his strength of character in not allowing himself to be another's pawn.
Fortinbras is a harder case. Hamlet is at first critical of Fortinbras—or seems to be—when he learns how many men his rival is putting at risk of death and how much money he is spending to avenge his father's death. Hamlet says this is a result of Fortinbras having too much money and having experienced too much peace: he doesn't realize the wastefulness of war, its huge cost in terms of resources and lives. As Hamlet says,
Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
Will not debate the question of this straw.
This is th' impostume of much wealth and peace.
Yet, while Hamlet is critical of Fortinbras's willingness to shed so much blood over a relatively worthless piece of ground (Denmark), he also admires Fortinbras's determination and audacity. Hamlet wishes he himself would stop procrastinating, calling his hesitation "three parts coward[ice]". He determines to be like Fortinbras and focus his thoughts on blood and violence.
Yet while Hamlet makes this resolution, it is out of character for him. Additionally, his emphasis, a second time, on the sheer waste of what Fortinbras is doing might give an audience pause. Is Fortinbras truly admirable to be willing to sacrifice so many men for nothing? Or is what Fortinbras is doing heinous?
For all Hamlet's brave bluster in act IV, scene iv, the Hamlet we know is thoughtful and humane enough (except to courtiers) to not want to be awash in the blood of many innocent people. For example, though popular and arguably the rightful heir to Demark's throne, Hamlet has never mentioned raising an army to overthrow Claudius. His distaste for violence and vengeance at all costs arguably makes Hamlet morally superior to Fortinbras.
Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In Act 4, as to Fortinbras, Hamlet seeks to maintain his father's example of honesty and fairness even in times of war. Fortinbras knows no such limitations. He will sacrifice "two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats" to have the right to territory that is virtually worthless except to say it belongs to Norway (4.4.15-30).

Speaking to Hamlet vs. Laertes, whereas Hamlet makes sure of the virtue of his deed in seeking to avenge his father (though some critics see this as his weakness; that is, wavering instead of certainty), Laertes waits for no such verification. He seeks bloody revenge against Hamlet for his father's accidental death and plots with Claudius to make it happen. He would even "cut his (Hamlet's) throat in th' church" (4.7.144). Claudius agrees that "(r)evenge should have no bound" (4.7.146) and the two plot to make it happen, one aware and the other, Laerets, his fool.

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Approved by eNotes Editorial