Violence as retribution is immoral.
Violence is always immoral, regardless of motivation, intent, reason, etc.
However, the motivation behind a violent act can render the perpetrator of violence to be amoral
rather than immoral, and make audiences sympathize
with violence. This still does not justify violence, and does not make violence
amoral, but it does help further the flawed idea that violence can be justified
– an idea perpetuated by Edwardian imperialism and nationalism. Perhaps still
feeling the effects of the Darwinism that arose during the Victorian era, Edwardian
imperialism and war were portrayed as justified violence, amoral rather than
immoral. A few relatively minor wars occurred in this pre-World War era, such
as the Second Boer War in Southern Africa, which divided Britain in
anti- and pro-war factions. Great orators such as liberal David Lloyd George
spoke against the war and viewed violence in war as immoral because it was just
an “extermination” of Boer peoples. Likewise, liberal Campbell-Bannerman opposed
both the war and imperialism for its immoral violence; when asked the
rhetorical, “When is a war not a war?” he answered with “When it is carried on
by methods of barbarism in South
Africa.” However, the fact that
conservatives like Joseph Chamberlain held power attests to the overall
acceptance of war as amoral, justified violence.
An example of art that justified
violence as retribution is the propaganda posters of the world wars. Propaganda
posters would dehumanize the opposition and portray allies as heroes, not only
in the images but in the language used. In this way, this was not only
propaganda for war, but propaganda that justified violence as a heroic and
necessary thing for the defense of one’s country. In our own time, we justify violent
retribution in the very laws that we hold so dear (if one considers the death
penalty violent retribution) and in the wars we continue to fight.
Our group disagrees with the statement, “Violence as retribution is immoral,” because sometimes one is simply attempting to bring about justice, which is definitely moral. For example, in ancient cultures, if one felt he or she was wronged by another he/she had the right to take violent action against the perpetrator. At this point the violence is not immoral but moral because it is agreed upon in that society. A society has the right to create its own set of morals which govern its population.
ReplyDeleteThe group does agree with your statement that certain reasoning behind violence can render it amoral because our group believes war is amoral. The initial reason for starting a war may vary, but once one enters a war, it is about survival. When something comes down to survival, it sets aside morality. One cannot fault a human for his/her animalistic nature, which is genetic.
Your focus on propaganda is interesting because propaganda seems immoral on all sides of an issue. It hides the true motives of an organization and also falsely portrays the enemy. However, propaganda does foster a will to survive and a will to win, which helps separate it from morality, but only to a certain degree.
In the end, our team firmly believes that morality depends on the perspective. Most actions can be justified by the one who commits them. There is always a gray area, never a fine line. Violence as retribution is simply a response to another wrong.
Team 4: Cody Dunn, Rin Sone, Stephen Hwang, Carlton Lew, Tyler Wong