Indecision and Henry IV

The question of moral indecision arises frequently in Shakespeare's Henry IV. Hal seems to be the most indecisive character in the play. He cannot decide if Falstaff is a worthy enough friend, and he also cannot decide if he really wants the fate of the nation in his hands. Through his indecision he strings both conflicting groups of people along, Falstaff and the people, and in the end has to decide between them. He succumbs to the lure of power and honor leaving his mentor and father figure Falstaff by the wayside. I think that this situation lends itself to indecision being immoral because even when a person decides, there are still residual attachments to the unchosen party. This is evident when Hal gives his speech to Falstaff and banishes him, but says if you ever catch word that "I am how I was, then find me and we shall be as we were." Therefore, both sides lose, because the full attention of the decider can never be devoted to one thing. With indecision comes regret. But does a decision have to be made in every situation? I think that if the two parties up for "picking" do not eventually demand a decision, then they are allowing themselves to be in an unhealthy situation, and therefore deserve whatever comes of indecision. In that situation, I think that indecision would be moral, simply because neither party has enough self respect to give an ultimatum. In the case of Henry V and Falstaff however, the situation demanded an answer, and therefore it was immoral to draw out the decision making process. Falstaff was left without a friend and the people were left with a regretful king.