Wylie P.1 Team 2 Edwardian Era Synthesis

Violence tends to take on a different air when associated with war; an “amoral” rather than immoral association. However, violence as retribution is skirting on the fine line between the two, and when war is added to the mix, it is even harder to claim it as justified or not. The 1915 silent epic The Birth of a Nation, directed by D. W. Griffith, depicts violence during and after the American Civil War. In this film, two families from the north and south respectively are followed through the cruelties of war and reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan inflicts tragedies upon one family, and retribution results, yet happiness is not attained. We have come to justify violence as righteous retribution if it has an emotional attachment to someone. If motivations have a connection to someone we are personally invested in, such as a family member, or even a character in a film, the violent crime tends to become justified. In The Birth of a Nation, this is portrayed when Klansmen hunt down and lynch a man who caused the main character’s sister to leap to her death. This sympathy for the loss of his sister forces the audience to see the crime against the man as justified, even though the Ku Klux Klan is behind it. Violence itself is never amoral, but rather what it is associated with gives it a purpose that we are rooting for. Sympathetic emotions towards what violence is trying to achieve is what makes it and retribution seem justified and right.

Miranda Gontz, Tori Kause, Helen Lee, Sara Patterson

Asher.Period 1.Team 8.Edwardian Synthesis!

To differentiate, immorality categorizes a being that pursues dishonorable and loathsome activities. An amoral being chooses to disregard the stigma of morality altogether; he or she pays no attention to the so-called “right” or “wrongness” of their deeds. Violation as retribution should always be considered immoral. If one were to be wronged by another, does that automatically grant the wronged a chance for retribution? Fortunately, society today has highly evolved since the times of Machiavelli, and even Nietsche. Violence, in any shape of form does nothing but cause harm to those involved as well as to those associated, such as family. Although performed to create peace and settle arising conflicts, war is a never ending thirst for power. Can killing thousands and thousands of innocent people truly be considered amoral? Some may argue that war is another tactic for protection or defense. To some extent, war may be seen as a way for two opposing sides to save themselves and protect their nation. Today and for some time, the United States has been lodged in an ongoing battle with Iraq and other Middle Eastern Nations. This constant brutal violence shed onto both sides will not cease until either a peace agreement or total annihilation occurs. At this rate, annihilation may seem to be inevitable. We look at violence, or war, as a means of safety and as a mechanism for self-defense. Although we are killing the innocent, we justify our means by acting out of defense. In the well known novel, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, the monster ensues on a murderous killing spree, hunting everyone in connection to Victor Frankenstein. This monster’s act of retribution was because of the neglect he faced from his own creator, Victor. The monster felt as though Victor had condemned him; he was alone and abandoned. With his increasing feelings of isolation, hatred and anger came about. At one point in the story the creature threatens Victor and asserts his power. He declares that he can “make [Victor] so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to [you].” Before leaving the monster adds, “You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!” The violence inflicted towards Victor and his family was simply the monster’s way of coping with his dismal life.

Jessie Yen, Ruhi Sharma, Sidney Gerst, Rachel Clauss :P

Wylie. Period 1. Team 6. Edwardian

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

Ash P4 T8 Edwardian Synthesis

Team Dragon:
Clair Fuller
Yee-Lum Mak
Alex Tranquada
Laurel Kitada
Jodi Shou
Per. 4

Edwardian Era Synthesis

            Violence as retribution is not moral except in the case of violence to prevent clear and present danger, such as in self-defense. Violence during war is viewed by society as justified—acts that would be considered atrocious outside of the context of wartime are considered grounds for a medal. However, the way society views violence during war fails to consider the morality of war itself. While violent acts within a war may be amoral, war itself is almost always immoral. Violence during present times is often framed as the only way to prevent a threat or to protect a person, institution, or ideal that is valued by our society. Whether the threat is real or imagined, and whether violence is indeed the only possible course of action, is highly debatable in most cases of modern “justified violence.”

            Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden is an example of the way violence was justified as retribution during the Edwardian Era, particularly with regard to the massive British empire of the day. Although written in 1899, two years before the beginning of the Edwardian Era, The White Man’s Burden has become symbolic of the imperialist attitudes of that were present during the Victorian and Edwardian eras. The colonization and “civilizing” of exotic lands during the height of the British Empire often came with tremendous cruelty towards the native citizens of the countries, but The White Man’s Burden presents these horrors as an appropriate response to the very existence of the “new-caught, sullen peoples.” Violence in this case is viewed as a justified retaliation against the native citizens of different races that lived in countries with traditions and cultures different from those of Western society. The White Man’s Burden frames violence against these peoples as a necessary response to their mere uncivilized presence on the face of the earth—the violence is provoked by their existence, less than any specific actions.

Asher. P2.T4 - Edwardian Era Synthesis

When people are faced with the question: “Is violent retribution for socially defined crimes right?” many things are brought to mind. Some may look at it through a set moral code, and others may see each individual case differently and may decide differently each time. An individual’s culture sets the laws and standards that they live by, what is a gruesome crime in one county or religion may be a passing thought in another’s mind. This shows that a question such as this cannot be answered without some form of prejudice. Our society’s ethics stipulate that we should answer: Yes, violence as punishment, revenge, or in any form is wrong. Yet we live in a time where our country has been at war for over half of my lifetime and one where our media extols violence.

It is within human nature to find differences that eventually lead to war, whether it is for riches or religion, we can easily persuade ourselves that what we are doing is right. War is the result of an amoral view on violence as a whole and as a means of vengeance. We use the same methods to justify violence as people thousands of years ago did, religion, greed, and survival are just a few. The multiple wars we are in now stem from, among other things, our need for revenge, and a need for a sense of safety both economically (oil) and physically (terrorism). We have justified countless deaths (by the same means we fear) because of our view of ourselves, our high moral horse, and our supposed needs.

One of the strongest influences and source of interest in our time is our cinema, and we have placed great meaning on violence and brutality. The most popular films have had violent premises, and within that scope we have glorified films that promote fatal vigilante justice. Man on Fire, Dirty Harry, Mad Max, Law Abiding Citizen, and A Time to Kill are some of the most popular of these films and all have a common thread of revenge. Movies have idealized vigilante justice and a life fueled by violence and revenge; they depict characters circumventing the law and even portraying government officials supporting these actions.

The film The Boondock Saints, written and directed by Troy Duffy, has reemerged as a cult classic and been popularized my generation. After a religious epiphany two bothers set out to rid the city of Boston of organized crime through ritualized execution. The acceptance and popularity of this movie goes to show how much we as a society view glorified gratuitous violence as reasonable and vindicated. Almost any film today, whether it is a Spy film or a family oriented superhero film, has a great amount of violence in it.

By: McKenna Johnson, Lydia Lim, & Penny Wang