In our opinion, violence as retribution is always immoral. As far as history is concerned, violence has never solved anything. Ever. Of course wars legally “settle” disputes, but is retribution ever really reached? There are lives lost, and a permanent hostility between opposing parties despite the settlement. Society has made it so war is the “solve all end all” deciding factor, which, as many of Society’s enactments, is ridiculous. The only way violence is amoral is out of self-defense, because someone has brought violence upon you to begin with. Of course society justifies war by saying it is out of “self-defense”, but if both parties are acting out of “self-defense”, who made the first offense? And what is the definition of amoral anyway? As far as a dictionary definition goes, amoral is defined by anything that is “ethical”, or “based upon the judgment or best interest of the common man”. Gee, how ambiguous can you get? War, by no means makes violence as retribution amoral, let alone “the judgment or best interest of the common man”.
During the Edwardian Era, authors possessed unsure feelings on the subject. For instance in “The Lagoon” by Joseph Conrad, Arsat justifies sacrificing his brother in order for his own happiness and prospect of “true love”, but in the end was having regrets and second thoughts about the indirect violence he committed. The Edwardian Age was no doubt a time of war and lust for power and supposed “happiness”. So is this the “best interest of the common man” the dictionary was talking about? Arsat justifies his violence by saying how he would be miserable and unhappy without the woman he was in love with. In the end, the Conrad hinted how war comes with consequences as symbolized with the death of the woman. This realization of “consequence” starts off the next Era.
-Team Waka
Lillie Moffett, Lauren Wakabayshi, Sooji Hong and Nicole Lussier
Good post team 6. In your beginning sentence, you state that violence as retribution is always immoral. Do you truly mean ALWAYS? In the context of your post, violence is used between nations, nothing personal like the disputes we see around us today. Take for instance a dispute between two people. If one person strikes the other where the second party doesn’t respond with violence but choosing to be “moral”, when will justice be delivered? But if the second party chooses to respond is it really immoral? The first offender will never be punished and the response by the second party can be seen as “an eye for an eye”, much like today’s legal court system. It is quite apparent to see that there is trouble in a situation where the victim chooses whether or not to respond.
ReplyDeleteIn the next paragraph, you state that the Edwardian era was a time of war and lust for power. But the succeeding era held the events of the first Great War. It may have been a time of lust for power, which defined all the events leading to the war but the Edwardian era was seen more of a time of relaxation. The Edwardian era was seen as a period of pleasure and rest between the events of the Victorian era and the Great War. Most reminisce about the Edwardian era as a time for relaxing in the garden for tea or for social conversation with friends as well as family.
Wylie Period 6 Team 3