Wyl.P5.T2 Edwardian Synthesis - Lucy Zhao, Melody Sue, Tiffany Chen

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.

Asher p.1 t.1

Violence as retribution is necessary, but it become immoral when people’s greed and self-satisfaction drive them to be violent and justify their behaviors as if those behaviors were the only way. For example, World War II was the justified by the US that the US had to stop tyranny and liberate Europeans. Even though people know that WWII caused many deaths and casualties, people think it was necessary; war is the only way to stop evils. However, in reality, the US was not interested in WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. People also did not know about Nazi concentration camps when the US entered the war. The goal of the war was to have revenge on the opponent and regain its influence. This means that US was originally driven by self-interest to have revenge rather than punishing the evil and the government and people who felt guilty about supporting a war were able to found excuses to justify their action.

Today many hero movies, such as Spiderman and Batman, represent how we justify violence as righteous retribution. Batman, for example, is about a hero who punishes all the crimes and evils in the city of New York. Batman is portrayed as a very strong man who physically punishes those who harms the society. His actions are conveyed to the viewers that violence is the only way to stop evils and give the viewers the impression that violence is most effective way as well.

Wyl.P1.T4 Edward Tyler, Claire West, Danny Shapiro, Ivy Arbolado

Wyl.P1.T4 Edward Tyler, Claire West, Danny Shapiro, Ivy Arbolado   
Edwardian Era Synthesis (1901-1939)

The Edwardian Era dawned with “peacemaker” Edward VII’s brief reign of Victoria’s Empire, still bristling with inhumane industrialism and unbridled in egotistical imperialism. 20^th Century Modernists rallied for shifts in perspective. A Bolshevik revolution in Russia, presaging the Communist Revolution of 1917, heightened intolerance for disparity between rich and poor and immorality of Britain’s class system, thus catalyzing changes to benefit the working class in England. George Bernard Shaw centered plays
on moral issues, aiding Women’s Suffrage and contesting morality of war. Art bisected war under the lens of Cubism in Picasso’s “Guernica” depicting moral innocents as they are killed in the Spanish Civil War. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity over-turned the forces of time and matter, paving Bertrand Russell and HG Wells discourses aligning science with metaphysics for reassessment of philosophy, religion,
and morality. Then, World War I began with Wells as the prophet coining this as “the War to End War.”
But Russell called it: if Germany militarism was brutally defeated it threatened a far worse war, deeply endangering humanity.

Immorality of violence is doctrine in most religion, but society twists justification for retribution or war.
Amoral force, based on natural forces, need, and desire is the constant in the world. Man’s higher self evolves a morality, but, outrageously differently even in the modern world. Edwardian novels confront the conundrum of morality as did Conrad’s Arsat in his bid to escape with his beloved in “The Lagoon.”  The victorious Arsat is haunted by conscience, guilty for not saving his brother during the rescue, rendering his love-nest bereft, incurable by rationalization that he his love justified the means. In a less complex Romantic Era, Dumas penned the never out of print, The Count of Monte Christo,  immortalizing “heroic revenge,” surviving in satires like Tarantino’s Kill Bill and straight on
in Charles Bronson films. The “Count” commits amoral vengeance, above morality, feeling justified
in retribution wreaked upon his once jealous compatriots for their entrapment of him in a 10 year imprisonment in order to steal his wealth and his betrothed.

Our Greek forbearers planted righteous retribution at our first judicial seat, the "rock of Ares," near the Acropolis where the gods’ council met. They attributed the amoral universe (reflecting our animal emotions) to raging gods who took as they wished and dealt punishments per their whims. The measure for justice was established by the God of War, Ares: Ares found his daughter Alcippe ravaged by the son of Poseidon, Halirrothius; to avenge his daughter’s deflowering, Ares killed him. Poseidon, appealed to the gods for justice. But the gods condoned Ares’s murderous retribution, pardoning him to penance as a slave for a year. Forgiveness and glorification of acts of retribution continues.

Wylie P5 T9 Edwardian Era Synthesis Question

Wylie P5 T9 Edwardian Era Synthesis Question 2

Retribution can be defined as punishment; something done or given to somebody as vengeance for something he or she has done. Questions of the morality and acceptability of violent retribution in society can be answered through examples, taken from the Edwardian Era, of events such as World War One, as well as related examples extending so far as into the world of art, specifically, John D. Shaw’s acrylic masterpiece, “The Highest Possible Courage”. Using the Edwardian example of WWI, the questions of when violent retribution is immoral, as well as whether war makes violent retribution amoral can be answered. Immoral maintains a fundamentally different meaning than amoral: where immoral means a complete refusal of morals to the point of wickedness, amoral mean simply a lack of morals; unethical or unprincipled. Therefore, according to these definitions, violent retribution can be considered immoral in that violent vengeance inflicted unnecessary is always an act of malice. This violent retribution can, however, be modified from a state of immorality to one of amorality in the case of a war. This assertion is fortified by the example of WWI. In that time of chaos, terror, and tragedy violent retribution could most definitely be classified amoral rather than immoral as there was a war going on and many people’s lives were at risk. Additionally, John D. Shaw’s painting, “The Highest Possible Courage”, represents society’s justification of violence as righteous retribution as it depicts men committing brutal acts of war in a valorous light. Finally, society today has justified current cases of aggressive retribution in the same way as it did during the Edwardian Era: drastic and violent times, such as times of war, call for drastic and violent retributive measures.

Wylie Team 9 Period 5

Audrey Ford

Gus Shettleroe

Adrienne Quiles

Period 1 Team 3 Synthesis Essay

Michael Abelev

Hyrum Judkins

Marc Yu

Misael

Throughout history and literary works of their time, violence, violent retribution, and violent actions all together where looked about as just and proper actions of human man. In the past, violence was seen in as honorable in many different aspects, primarily in a way depicting that it is human nature. Though, with the beginning of the Edwardian period and throughout that time, violence was looked upon in a whole new light. In the literary artwork Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the author shed light on the subject of violence in a sense that many people of the general public had never seen or considered. Conrad depicted violence as more of an unnecessary acts derived from the primal roots of man. He showed it as a savage action which brings nothing but pain and suffering. The natives of the Congo were the story takes place were seen as unintelligent, uncivilized, and in turn savage and violent. While the protagonists in the story, Marlow and Kurtz and their crew were educated and civilized. The misrelating between the whites and natives showed how violence was primal and unrefined aspect of life. In a time of imperialism, violence was always seen as a necessity in order to achieve what is wanted, but with the new ideologies aspiring, the subject of violence became evident of needed change. World War I became the first catastrophe which was felt by all humans across the planet and the effects of violence were felt by all. War and violence had now become something that effected every, not just heard of in literature. Justice, order, and non-violent retaliation became a new way of dealing with situation that calls for action, this is thanks to the ideologies brought upon by new views on violence during the Edwardian Era.

wylie.Team1.Period6

Violence for retribution strikes a delicate balance between what is just and what is right. There are often many angles presented during war, many of which cannot be truly understood unless one is placed in the time and setting. Thus each culture draws different conclusions to the morality of war. The Edwardian period was the first phase of the hundred-year war. As depicted in the “Lagoon” and Heart of Darkness, both depict the use of violence as amoral rather than immoral. To illustrate Kurtz in Heart of darkness comes to a realization that his horrendous actions are inhumane and he will die with his sins. This Edwardian period although heavily infused with war, also showed some economic and social changes. This era illustrated a change into socialism, which depicted equality to the lower class citizens during the time, in turn leaving people questioning the status of war.  Today, we have seen the result of violence as retribution with the retaliation of 9/11 attacks. The terrorist attacks left America, shock and terrified; two qualities that disable our ability to think properly. As America rushed into two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) both of which we lost. Violence of retribution has killed many American soldiers as well as many innocent Iraqis and Afghanistanis.  

Period 6 Team 3 Synthesis Question

Often in literary works and throughout history, the use of violent retribution was seen as justifiable. In societal ethics of past periods, violence was be used to preserve and to support honor and respect. Yet one can see that, throughout the Edwardian period, this philosophy was becoming less accepted. Primarily when examining literary artwork such as the Heart of Darkness, Conrad depicts violence more as an unnecessary act of savagery in which it only brings pain and suffering. The natives were seen as uncivilized, violent, and unintelligent while Marlow, Kurtz, and other whites were portrayed as refined, intelligent, and superior. This depicts violence as something brutish and unrefined. In a sense, even though this belief was still uncommon due to the prominent development of imperialism and nationalism along with the popularity of jingoism, it was subject to change. Death and suffering in war was amoral and it was justifiable because war itself was encouraged at times to promote imperialism. This way of thinking soon changed as a result of sheer casualties and destruction from the violent retributions in World War I and its surrounding events. Such violence and war had now become too costly and horrific, man could not continue such a destructive way of living. One can see that even in our own time violent retribution is costly and often does more harm than good. Instead, modern society uses its court system to carry out justice and retribution. Within the Edwardian Era, society had started a paradigm shift in the content of violence itself. (255 Words)

Dylan Mulcahy
James Jin
Amber Austin
Jenny Zhan
Caleb Ong

PERIOD 5 TEAM 5

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

Edwardian Synthesis Asher P4 T3

Different cultures and time periods deal with violence in their own ways. Sometimes, the line between what is moral and what is completely amoral can be blurred. The Edwardian era was one that was defined by bloodshed and war. War became a concept that citizens in the Edwardian era grew to become proud of. During this era, the destruction of the enemy was viewed as patriotic in a sense. This, however, would lead to more mindless bloodshed from the opposing side in order to protect the interests of the opposing party. Thus, the cycle would continue. Even in modern times, wars are commonly accepted as “retributions to violence.” Two examples include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. American tensions were high after the 9/11 attacks and in order to gain some compensation, our country attacked the enemy countries. In war, the concept of morality becomes blurred when the notions of patriotism and nationalism come into play. One piece of literature that represents how we have justified violence as righteous retribution would be “The Lagoon” by Joseph Conrad. The Lagoon demonstrates the ideas of nationalism and patriotism from the Edwardian Era and the concept of self-interest from our modern society. Arsat, the main character can be construed as a symbol for the overall views of his society. The Lagoon shows us examples of how using violence as retribution is immoral.

Edwardian era synthesis p1 t1

Justin Park Jenny yu Ashley Chang Diana Kim

Prior to the Edwardian era, indiscriminate punishment as a righteous retribution was accepted. However, during the Edwardian era, social and economic changes shifted European countries. Socialism which focused on the lower class promoted equality in the society and also Protectionism intended to create fair competition between states. Thus, the rise of these two “isms” brought more equality between people and indiscriminate punishment was not accepted as much as it was used to be.

During the Edwardian era, both World War 1 and World War 2 occurred which made people question the standard of violence of being immoral or amoral. Violence as retribution is immoral as Ghandi said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If all people used violence as retribution, there would be so much harm in the society and everybody would end up with devastating results. Thus, violence as retribution is immoral. War is also immoral because citizens started to be proud of war. Due to patriotic citizens, rather than killing the other country for a purpose, citizens thought their actions were justified because they were doing it for their country. For example, after the 9/11 attack, 3000 Americans were killed and patriotic citizens of America were extremely mad at Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, the United States without a clear purpose started to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. A movie “Old Boy” shows the justification of violence as righteous retribution. The main character becomes kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years for no reason. After coming out he tries to find who has imprisoned him and during that process, he kills everyone who gets in his way. He justifies his murders thinking that it is for his retribution.

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.

Edwardian Synthesis Question wyl.p5.t1@gmail.com

Team 1 (HAM)
Charles Salumbides
Fedor Kossakovski
Justin (COOOOOOORN) Cornford
John Farnworth

Edwardian (1901-1939) Synthesis Question

It could be argued that "The Lagoon" and Heart of Darkness (HOD) both deal with violence as amoral rather than immoral. For example, the character of Kurtz in HOD only comes to the realization that his acts and the acts of his "tribal" followers are immoral as he is dying and has to come to terms with the horrors of his environment and his own
inhumanity. In the Greek and Medieval eras, the primitive idea of indiscriminate punishment as a righteous "retribution" was accepted. The philosophies of Homer in The Odyssey, Machiavelli in The Prince, and the philosopher Nietsche would
agree with this. So...when is violence as retribution immoral? Explain whether war makes it amoral? How do we justify violent retribution in our own time? Choose a piece of art (from any art form) that represents how we have justified violence as righteous retribution and explain how this justification is conveyed. (Research Questions 1, 5, 9)

Both The Lagoon" and Heart of Darkness (HOD) are great examples of how using violence as retribution is immoral. The dictionary definition of immoral is the violating of the rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. By this definition violence in any case cannot be moral due to that violence is never justified. Even though it is established through definition of the English language and morals violence is still common in society and is considered at times necessary, such as war. Our society uses war more as a responsibility of the people in society and supports this use of violence. The main concept of war is the fighting and death amongst men due to orders and a cause mostly unknown. These orders and causes for battle encourage war and violence. This encouragement for such violence and death can often lead to amorality. The people involved are subjected to constant violence and stress and in doing so lose their sense of right and wrong. This lose of the soldiers ethics is solely due to the constant bombardment of violence in their lives this makes it possible for the soldiers affected by lose of principles is acting amoral. These soldiers simply accept the violence and live with it. Although they accept it, it doesn’t mean violence is acceptable in general. Except for this select group of men who fight, violence is generally immoral and does not accomplish any good.
As the famous Edwardian artist William Orpen used his famous painting “The Thinker” to depict retribution as society’s justification for violence. The painting specifically shows a lone soldier sitting on a rock. This form of artwork represents the pain of the men to kill their enemies because of their so called “duty” as a citizen. Society believes that retribution as moral, since warfare has been used as a common method to settle conflicts amongst foreign and domestic nations. The soldiers of warfare can become accustom to such violence and destruction, like the one shown through Orpen’s artwork, that he becomes unaffected by violence and acts out of amorality. As a society we see the violence and the basic principles of war as part of life, while it shouldn’t be accepted and contradicts basic principles of humanity. When people begin to accept war and its violence that comes with it, many begin to view it with amorality.

wylie period 1 team 5

Bloodlust and the desire for gore in the Edwardian period is a shocking symbol of the twisted state of mind inside all of us. The idea of retribution being immoral is strictly an individual matter of opinion across all varieties of culture and custom. For example, in the bible it states “An eye for an eye.” However, one of political leader Ghandi’s most famous quotes is, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” So it would be accurate for Edwardian philosophers to conclude that violence as retribution is immoral when the acts of violence become personal revenge rather than retribution for the common good. Today, we justify retribution in saying that for every crime, there should be a punishment, lest our world be infested with wicked people. Therefore, when someone in our world commits a crime or a wrongdoing, they are either put in jail or suffer some other consequence as a result. This is the twenty first century equivalent of amoral retribution. “The Art of War,” a philosophical manuscript by Machiavelli is a true archetype for the Edwardian theory of violence and retribution. It is a literary work which praises brutality and paints a floury picture of the barbarianism that is the act of war. Societies at large compose their own views of retribution, violence, war and revenge in which to follow. However, it is up to a person’s individual conscience and moral standards to conclude whether or not they support the idea of “amoral violence.”