Violence for retribution is always immoral and in the same way, war is always immoral. In both situations, people will get hurt no matter what. How can an act of violence be justified by another? In the end, the one taking the retribution is no different from the original person who committed the violence. Yet, at the same time, without having to face retribution, the person committing violence would never stop. Because of human nature, we are stuck in this state of hypocrisy in which we feel that we need to hurt people in order to stop them from hurting others. Yet, in the end, we are still hurting others. The worst part of it is that the one receiving the retribution believes that they are acting righteously.
In Inferno by Dante, he talks about the nine circles of hell, who goes into each of the nine circles, and the retributions that each different type of sinner must face once they are there. Each of the retributions is violent, such being trapped in a burning tomb for all eternity. In the sense of an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth, we have come to believe that sins should be accounted in a way that hurts the violator. And what better way is there to hurt than through the use of violence? Because of this way of thinking, our society will forever be performing acts of violence, whether these acts are being committed for the sake of performing violence or as acts of retribution.
Lorena Huang
Diana Huang
Rachel Yeo
Your introduction is very hooking. The use of a rhetorical question really engages the reader. The one thing that would make your research response stronger is the use of more concrete ideas and examples in the first paragraph. Everything is very hypothetical and non-tangible. The use of more examples in your second paragraph would be helpful in really getting your point across. The way your phrase everything is excellent, but work on adding tangible examples.
ReplyDelete