In terms of Hamlet's philosophic view, these two "friends" from school were willing to take him to England and deliver Hamlet to his death, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  He simply re-writes the letter, seals it with his ring which is an authentic seal of the King of Denmark considering he is a prince of the realm, and sends them to their well-deserved deaths.

I would also consider this a practical move, since Hamlet certainly does not want to die...at least not yet...as he has unfinished business to complete.  He has been dispatched by his father's ghost to exact revenge on Claudius and any others behind King Hamlet's death.

As far as revenge goes on Hamlet's part, I don't see him vengeful toward Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  The play reads as though he considers them a stepping stone and a way out of a sticky situation.  He doesn't waste time with remorse for them, but he doesn't seem out to get them either.

Today's moral standards? Hummm.  That's more difficult since they differ greatly from person to person.  Unfortunately, "right" and "wrong" don't seem to be so conveniently black and white anymore.  As a student of literature, I tend to be able to see from all points of view.  I can understand Hamlet's decision to redirect R&G so that he can surprise "daddy".  Is it wrong to kill?  Yes.  Are there times when it's accepted? Sure...war being one of those times.  Hamlet is at war.

Hamlet is full of ambiguity. That is how Shakespeare crafted it. Hamlet’s choice was not a matter of kill or be killed, although in all honesty it may have come to that, but Hades made a very astute observation in saying that Hamlet acted too hastily. This is a recurrent theme in Hamlet, and it in part led to Hamlet’s downfall.

But once Hamlet learned the contents of the letter, how would he know whether or not Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could be trusted? He couldn't very well come out and say, "So, guys, I know that Claudius is sending me to England to be killed - are you in on it?" If he did that and if they were in on the plot with Claudius, he would have been killed right then and there.

Also keep in mind that he didn't know pirates were going to attack his ship, thus giving him a chance to escape from R&G. He read the letter and switched the contents the night before the ship was attacked, so as far as Hamlet knew, he was stuck with R&G until they reached England.

This is definitely a tough topic because I know that most of us would (and should) think that sending two clueless guys (if they were in fact clueless) to their deaths is a horrible thing to do. But we can't consider it from 21st-century armchair quarterback points of view. At this point in the story, Hamlet felt it was either kill or be killed, and he believed he was working toward a goal given to him by his dead father - he wasn't about to let two lackeys lead him to his beheading in England.

I don't agree with all of the decisions Hamlet made (his treatment of Ophelia was cruel and in many ways unnecessary). But this is one that I just can't see where he had any other choice, unless he stole a dinghy from the ship (assuming there was one) and took off on his own.

I would expect that Hamlet's view of the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was simply that they were "casualties of war."  It was either him or them, and he felt strongly compelled to finish the job given to him by the ghost of his father - he needed to seek revenge on Claudius.  In addition, Hamlet knew that these guys were working for his enemy, Claudius - so why would he even hesitate to eliminate them?

With regards to today's morals, are they really that different than back then?  Okay, so if I knew that someone had killed my father, I would go to the police because I'm not the prince of Denmark and the murderer isn't a king.  But if I continue with the idea that they were casualties of war, wouldn't their deaths be justifiable?

This might be a good one for further discussion by other editors and interested parties! :)

Analyze Hamlet's own philosophic view, in terms of his goal of revenge and today's moral standards, in the scene where Polonius is killed. Is his action justifiable and practical?

Hamlet, in my opinion, does not present any specific, much less systematic, philosophic point of view. His beliefs are revealed to us in flashes in the incredibly striking language Shakespeare gives him to express universal, though extreme, feelings and responses to the conditions of life. The unusual or even bizarre situation in which he finds himself—that of being tasked by the ghost of his father to avenge his murder—is only partly the driving force behind Hamlet's actions.

In the medieval world in which the story takes place, Hamlet presumably has no recourse but personal revenge for his father's killing. There is obviously no police force, nor presumably even a court to which he can bring his case, especially since the murderer is now the man in charge—the King. Moreover, Hamlet has no objective evidence to present of Claudius's guilt. Our decision on the moral rectitude of Hamlet's actions has to take these facts into account. Yet one senses that Hamlet's way of dealing with this situation indicates a rebellion against the overall norms of society, apart from the necessity of carrying out private vengeance for a murder.

From the start, Hamlet appears contemptuous of the whole court, though there isn't any reason for him to believe others beyond Claudius carried out the murder. He recognizes something false and hypocritical about all of them, including or perhaps especially Polonius, despite Polonius's usual portrayal as a harmless old fool (Branagh's film version portrayed him quite differently). There is, however, no justification for Hamlet's killing him. He does it by mistake, but he seems to have no regrets and no feeling of guilt over having killed Polonius. That Hamlet's reaction is so bizarre or indifferent is a sign of how alienated he has become and how much a stranger he is in the world, like Camus's Meursault in the twentieth century The Stranger. In both cases, a man kills with a detachment that's emblematic of his remoteness from the norms of civilized existence.

Hamlet's actions are nevertheless not "justifiable" in any sense that would apply to our own time or even Shakespeare's. Even without the killing of Polonius, his behavior reveals a cruelty, especially to Ophelia, that I believe is a sign of genuine mental illness and not just the ruse of appearing insane usually attributed to Hamlet. Yet the madness is symbolic of that part of the human mind that all of us may reveal in extreme and terrifying situations. Hamlet is like a piece of humanity, as are all tragic heroes. A heightened, fevered demon exists in people that comes to the fore at times in spite of our efforts to subdue it. Shakespeare's play is akin to a nightmare in which this demon is let loose and becomes the controlling power within a man.

Analyze Hamlet's own philosophic view, in terms of his goal of revenge and today's moral standards, in the scene where Polonius is killed. Is his action justifiable and practical?

An interesting and complex set of answers. There is no real coherent philosophical position articulated in this scene. Hamlet does not fully justify his positions. Nor does he lay out reasons for them. He is in the grip of passions, and he acts. If we were constructing a philosophy for him in this scene, we'd have to suggest something like a blend of pragmatism and the great chain of being; things have their proper order, brothers should not kill brothers, but princes may kill lesser beings.

Is his action justifiable? No. Is it practical? No. Is it understandable? Sure. Who hasn't been in the grip of passion. I suspect it would be called manslaughter today.

Analyze Hamlet's own philosophic view, in terms of his goal of revenge and today's moral standards, in the scene where Polonius is killed. Is his action justifiable and practical?

Hamlet appears to feel justified in his killing of Polonius referring to it as a mistake because he thought Polonius was Claudius, "I took thee for thy better."  Since Hamlet's goal since the first act has been to seek revenge against Claudius for murdering his father, he feels that mistaking Polonius for Claudius is a legitimate excuse for killing Polonius.  He also justifies his act by saying that Polonius brought about his own death because he was being nosy, "Take thy fortune. / Thou finds't to be too busy is some danger." 

In today's moral standards, Hamlet would be convicted of murder because mistaking one person for another is not justifiable since people aren't supposed to take the law into their own hands like a vigilante.  The second excuse that Hamlet gives might be justifiable in today's courts of law.