In attempting to justify that violence as retribution is immoral, one must first observe the primitive thinking in previous eras. Retribution to those before the Edwardian era believed it to be an immoral act in war; whereas the transition in thinking led to an “amoral” approach. Wars have not changed, rather the thinking of the warriors have altered. Essentially, the founding ideal behind immorality in retribution comes down to the time period one looks at. To those from the Greek and Medieval eras, they would perfectly accept the concept behind violent retribution; however, those from contemporary periods would be less likely to embrace such ideals. Present-day war has made retribution amoral because of its ignorance of morality. We simply cannot justify violent retribution in our own time. In referencing Ghandi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” If humankind were to follow the code of Greek times, there would be utter chaos. With the transformation during the beginning of the twentieth century, our perception of revenge has formed negative opinion and changed the way we act in war. Ghandi represents this newfound thinking and can easily be applied to the question, “Is violence as retribution immoral?” Without intense analysis, revenge in the form of violence, according to Ghandi, will only lead to complete unawareness. We cannot justify acts against one another because that would not establish a moral form of war. Violence as retribution should not be tolerated as it can only lead to “the whole world blind.”
Trent Kajikawa
Naomi Krieger
Wilson Muller
Daphne Liu
Very good job, the idea of immoral and amoral doings plays into the concept of the Edwardian era and what it is like to be in a situation where revenge is an alternative. On the other hand, more concepts about the Edwardian era would have suficed.
ReplyDeletePeriod 5 Team 9
Audry, Adrienne and Gus
Your synthesis was very well laid out and was complex but concise and easy to understand. Our group liked how your compared "amorality" and "immorality." They can be easily be over looked as the same, but your team contrasted it in such a way that was clear and easy to notice. So, thank you for that. Also, integrating Gandhi's wisdom into the your synthesis statement helped bring out more emphasis on the points your group was trying to cover. Our group most definitely agrees with the Gandhi reference. We would world to be perfectly fair and that would be amazing in a perfect world. However, this is not a perfect world and would would not go round if it were perfectly fair. Life is unfair and everyone must accept it, but it does not mean we should go out our way and add more fuel to the flame. Wonderful synthesis response!
ReplyDeleteMarc, Hyrum, Michael, Misael
wyl.p1.t3
Delete