Whether violence, at its core, is amoral or immoral is a question that has found its way into modern society in the 1950s and 1960s. With the emergence of the “hippy” generation, society became ecstatic about “make[ing] love, not war.” Of course, as the trend tempered into moderation, society once again turned to violence. Society turned to violence for punishment. For retribution. Nowadays, politicians in favor of waging war debate on the edge of why unconditional violence, disturbed not by morality or ethics, is the solution to many problems. This sensibility that justifies war as amoral violence, however, dates far back to the termination of the Edwardian Era, the birth of World War I (birth of war? there’s irony in that, in case it eluded you, reader).
September 3rd, 1939. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain officially announced that Britain and Germany were at war. Public announcement? Not exactly. More like a rich piece of literature that Chamberlain used to assert to the general public that war was necessary. Upon further thought, more like rich, amoral bullshit that Chamberlain used to justify to HIMSELF the necessity of violent retribution. Chamberlain hid excuse after excuse behind the extravagant diction of his public oration. Of course, the cliché excuse of “hav[ing] done all that any country could do to establish peace” was immediately used. Furthermore, Chamberlain conveyed his justification through analysis of his opponent, claiming that Hitler could only be stopped by force. “[Hitler’s] action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.” Hitler favored violence as a means of opportunistic gain; Chamberlain decided to use violence against him. How ironic. And to top it off, Chamberlain bathes his audience in a pool of pathos, characterizing the enemy with a mass of loaded words. “For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against - brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution.”
Of course, we (team 1) are in no way condoning the actions and motives of Adolf Hitler or the Nazi movement. We’re just merely criticizing humanity’s justification of war in general. ALL WARS. Because in the millennia that mankind has lived on this earth, their justifications for “amoral violence” have not changed at all. These justifications exist only as weak excuses that persuade the overly gullible that we must kill to prevent some strange, radical tyrant from killing others.
Asher.p2.t1.Edwardian Era Blog Response
ReplyDeleteby Brianna Loo, Calvin Chan, Christina Yang, Jane Lu
Overall, great job on your synthesis! The fact that you guys actually took time to actually define the difference really strengthened the synthesis answer because understanding those two words is key to answering the question correctly and thoughtfully. Also, the approach you guys took to answer the question was also interesting because you guys stated there is “no real answer.” However, although the questions were quite thought-provoking and helped strengthened your argument, the synthesis overall would have been even stronger had you guys spent more time elaborating on certain key points that you have presented. For example, we decided to spend our entire synthesis answering the question using Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as examples. However, the points that you guys do give are indeed valid and good job linking the synthesis to the era! Also, the quote is well used and fits perfectly into your synthesis. Once again, good job on your synthesis answer for the Edwardian Era and keep up the good work for the next eras to come! :)