Appearance is Everything

In Hamlet, appearance is everything. Throughout the play, several "shows" are put on, each unique, yet similar. One is a play, one is feigned insanity, another the crafty work of a spy–but they are all used to provoke a reaction or gain information. They are used for manipulation. Hamlet uses a modified version of a play to gauge the guilt of his uncle while his acting crazy helps keep the king and queen off his trail.



The employment of these tactics in Hamlet begs the question: is it ethical? Of course, the idea of ethics is a rather abstract concept that may or may not be influential in our individual decision making processes, but still, is it ok to use false reality to try to discover truth or lead people to action?

This is a relevant discussion for me in my field of study: design. As a designer, it is my purpose to use type and image to invoke a response in a viewer (or user, depending on the medium). I contrive a poster, website, or experience with the intent of influencing the decision-making of another. I want them to act. I want them to buy something, try something, or give something. The product I create may reference reality, but it is in and of itself a created thing. Thus, are the decisions of the viewer based in reality if they have been influence by my work? Is this purely manipulation, or is it merely the presentation of a choice for someone to make?

Personally, I think enticements are necessary. I believe that they should be honest in their representation, but the use of type and image to illicit an emotional response and action is, in my opinion, quite acceptable. However, it is difficult for me to feel the same way about Hamlet. Is he behaving in an acceptable manner? Is it ok to put people in a contrived situation in order to glean information from them or to observe their response? Perhaps not.

Religious beliefs, or course, can apply in this case. I believe it was President Packer who taught that one could not go astray without first being warned, or in other wards, without first being taught not to do the thing they are doing, whether through the Spirit, the Light of Christ, or by some other way. Thus, I believe it is the Lord's way to warn people in order to allow them to exercise agency. In order to act for themselves, they must be aware of their choices. Setting speed traps isn't really the way of God. Rather, he explicitly warns and teaches, and leaves the choice up to us. Perhaps this is what we should do as well.  But Hamlet does not. I do not think that this is right. Do you?