mlet himself seems to be defining Aristotle’s concept of the tragic flaw in human beings when he gives his comments to Horatio regarding evil, i.e., the impact one stamp of defect, in an otherwise virtuous human:
That, for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As in their birth,--wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin,--
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason;
Or by some habit, that too much o’er-leavens
The form of manners;--that these men,--
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature’s livery or fortune’s star,--
Their virtues else,--be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault: the dram of eale
Doth all the noble substance of a doubt
The above description of evil in human beings looks at the problem of evil from three different scenarios. The first form of evil is ascribed to nature, a vicious mole that is inherent in a being, one for which, like their birth, they cannot be blamed. We might read this as a genetic defect or chemical imbalance. The second form of evil is a complexion (emotional state) that like a cancerous cell overgrows the healthy pales and forts of reason. We could also read this as irrational thought. The third form of evil comes in the form of habit, habit that rises above plausive manners. We might read this as a lack of impulse control. If we look at various characters from the play, we can see these responses to evil are responsible for their action, or as the case may be in some instances, a lack of it. Perhaps Claudius is an example of all three of these responses to evil rolled up into one. He is without morals and
...