To understand in what contexts violence is immoral versus amoral, one must first understand what the fundamental difference between the terms is. Immorality is generally accepted as being in a state where a code of morals is actively and knowingly being broken. Amorality on the other hand is the state of there being a complete lack of a moral code or a decision to completely disregard moral beliefs. For these reasons, immorality is generally considered much worse because it involves someone knowing how bad their actions are but still participating in them, while amorality is generally looked upon as ignorance of moral codes; the same choice is not involved. Amorality is often seen as the something which is at the heart of basic instincts, something that is not common amongst average people because they now adhere to a moral code that society has agreed upon. This concept was analyzed by Sigmund Freud, who lived during the Edwardian era. He boiled down the state of amorality as being the “Id” of human existence, the very base and primal instincts that function without restraint deep at the heart of every human. This same concept is analyzed in Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which portrays the amorality of man when confronted with chaos and violence in the African interior.
An important question that is then raised by these definitions is when is violence (which is generally considered to be immoral) when done as retribution, immoral. In looking at what the moral codes of the modern era are, we feel that violence as retribution is always immoral; all that is trying to be accomplished is revenge, a feeding of the Id, of what our most basic human instincts demand. So why is one violent act in return for another socially acceptable? We generally justify violent retribution, such as the death penalty, as an attempt to protect society; if we punish a criminal or someone who has committed an act of violence with violence; it is merely being used as a deterrent to future violent acts. Although this is what is generally accepted by many in the populous, other still say that these actions only produce a viscous circle of violence that ends up haunting society. Another question is the amorality of violence, which is generally accepted to be seen in times of war. This concept rang loud and clear throughout World War I during the Edwardian Era. Violence was committed on a scale grander than any other, nearly 9 million people were killed on the battlefield, and the violence was often considered amoral. In war, violence can be considered amoral because of the fact that people are often fighting for their lives, and are often forced by their superiors to commit violent acts. Because the choice in the violence one commits is taken away, violence in wartime can be considered amorality instead immorality. Art can be used to justify violence as retribution, and an example of this can be seen in the World War I poster titled Enlist! by Fred Spear. This piece of art from the Edwardian Era portrays a mother and her child drowning after the sinking of the Lusitania. The image was supposed to incite anger amongst the British populace, and to help justify the disastrous amount of violence occurring in World War I. By using an emotional appeal, the government and society as a whole tried to justify the violence of world war as a necessary catastrophe which was being committed as retribution for equally heinous acts.
August Mawn, Thomas Allen, Daniel Pon, Zachary Gershman
No comments:
Post a Comment