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.”

Edwardian Era [Wylie Period 6 Team 2] (:

To even begin analyzing moral practices, one must be able to differentiate between “amorality” and “immorality”. Amoral is the lack of morality as a whole, the lack of righteousness and wrongness of something. Immoral is the defiance against accepted practices of morality. In previous eras, such as the Greek and Medieval eras, indiscriminate punishment was considered a righteous retribution because no one challenged this idea since their religion, the dominant figure at the time, practiced this, thinking it was God’s fated way of punishing His people.

The primitive minds of humans are focused on one thing: survival. In this survival mentality, humans act in defense. Charles Darwin’s scientific novel about the human evolution illustrates the development of the human intellect and the physical transformation that occurs to fit the changing time periods. Since the Victorian Era, Darwin and other authors such as Charles Dickens wrote novels that challenged the human’s moral judgment. This moral awareness progressed into the Edwardian era. In the midst of World War I during the Edwardian Era, there were two “-isms” that were used to justify the acts of violence in warfare: imperialism and patriotism. War was declared on the premise of defense and offense. It is the ignorance of morality that drives humans to violence. The instinct of humans to defend using violence is amoral, not immoral. The action of humans to attack and deprive people of their freedom is immoral, which is the imperial aspect of the Edwardian Era. Patriotism is the dedication and willingness to sacrifice for a country. It is amoral rather than immoral to sacrifice oneself for what one loves.

Currently, violent retribution, to some, is considered legal punishment for crimes committed, or in a more severe sense, capital punishment. It is the victim’s way of finding justice in society and in humanity. However, violent retribution is not a favored subject by others nor is it a moral form of punishment. People who have sinned now seek retribution religiously. Some believe that violence is the act from the heart and not the mind.

The Everlasting Mercy by John Masefield (1911) stressed the boldness in language to counter the charming English country life that most artists have shown; however, the entity of the story revolves around the subject of redemption. The gruel violence in Masefield’s story presented itself with no sympathy and no censor. The main character lived a life of violence, lies, and failures and had an epiphany that leads him on a path to redemption, which to be received, forces the character through hardships and pain. Violence is retribution when it proves that the victim is justified in receiving redemption.

Edwardian Synthesis, Wylie P5 T4

The Edwardian era was defined by bloodshed and war. While violent revenge was not easily justifiable in the context of murder, war became something that citizens became proud of. Slaughtering the enemy was viewed as patriotic and as defending the interests of the country. Ultimately, the fervent bloodshed during the era reciprocated in fueling more mindless killing on the opposing side, justified by the moral obligation of the period of patriotic revenge. Even today, wars are accepted as retribution to violence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan served the purpose in America of retaliation against the perceived injustice of the 9/11 attacks. The immorality of premeditated murder was cast aside in order to justly serve revenge to America’s attackers. The propaganda during World War I served as a clear portrayal of violence as righteous retribution. Posters of the time often depicted valiant soldiers slaughtering the enemy, often with some caption alluding to amending the injustices of the enemy. Such artwork could be found on both sides, contributing to the ideological justification of bloodshed on both the Allies and the Central powers. In war, moral notions holding back murder were ignored in light of patriotic revenge.

Wyl.p6.t8 Edwardian Synthesis

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