Violence as retribution is necessary, but it become immoral when people’s greed and self-satisfaction drive them to be violent and justify their behaviors as if those behaviors were the only way. For example, World War II was the justified by the US that the US had to stop tyranny and liberate Europeans. Even though people know that WWII caused many deaths and casualties, people think it was necessary; war is the only way to stop evils. However, in reality, the US was not interested in WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. People also did not know about Nazi concentration camps when the US entered the war. The goal of the war was to have revenge on the opponent and regain its influence. This means that US was originally driven by self-interest to have revenge rather than punishing the evil and the government and people who felt guilty about supporting a war were able to found excuses to justify their action.
Today many hero movies, such as Spiderman and Batman, represent how we justify violence as righteous retribution. Batman, for example, is about a hero who punishes all the crimes and evils in the city of New York. Batman is portrayed as a very strong man who physically punishes those who harms the society. His actions are conveyed to the viewers that violence is the only way to stop evils and give the viewers the impression that violence is most effective way as well.
This is very clear and well explained. It brings up thought-provoking ideas about the motivations and effects of retribution. The examples of World War II and various superheroes demonstrate the idea that retribution does not necessarily reflect immorality. It is clear from this posting that you believe there are two sides to revenge. However, more connection between this and the Edwardian era would be preferable (by discussing the role of retribution in the Edwardian era, etc)
ReplyDelete