Edwardian Synthesis Question Wylie.P5.T6

Zachary Lindecamp

Kelsey Nakamura

Janelle Li

Nancy Lai

Determining whether violence is immoral or amoral differentiates with each individual. Whether it be the philosophy that violence is never the answer and is always an immoral decision, or believing in the phrase “an eye for an eye”, there will always be differing views. But when an act of violence is done out of vengeance for one’s personal gain and not for retribution for a previous act, it becomes immoral. In the face of war, violence becomes amoral to everyone involved because of the amount of violence seen and encountered on a day to day basis. The people involved in wars live in an environment full of violence. The consequence of viewing violence as amoral in a time of war will leave one vulnerable, and unable to protect him or herself. One must adapt to survive. We justify retribution in today’s world with consequences rather than violence. When someone breaks the law, they must suffer the consequences whether it be a warning, a fine, or time in jail. Violent retribution in present day society is seen through the death penalty, and it is justified because the crimes committed by certain convicts are so inhumane that many often believe the world would be a better and safer place without them. The perfect piece of art that justifies violence as righteous retribution is the 9/11 Memorial. The justification is conveyed by all the names of the people who died that day engraved in the memorial. Each and every one of those names represents someone who did not deserve to die that day. And each and every one of those names justifies why we declared war and why our violence towards the enemies is righteous retribution.