asher p2 team 7 Edwardian Synthesis

Siena Palm

Arin Nam

MacKenzie Forman

Steven Li

Period 2

Team 7

Edwardian Era Synthesis Q

Whether violence as retribution is immoral is a question that is often debated about. Retribution, essentially revenge, although not exactly moral, is considered by some to be right. For instance, if someone close to you was brutally murdered, and you retaliate by killing that murderer, is the act of violence still immoral? The major violent retribution of our time would be capital punishment. Capital punishment is the act of administering the death penalty upon someone who has committed a serious crime, and many people believe this to be completely justified. Despite feelings that the guilty must be punished, the fact remains that a human is a human, and denying a person the right to live is immoral. After all, if a person is in prison for murder, life in prison is already a major punishment; seeing as how prison is already complete torture itself, it seems that the death penalty is only a relief.

On the contrary, war in some cases makes retribution amoral. A perfect example would be the United States’ war against Al Qaeda. The September 11^th attacks were one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the United States; approximately 3,000 Americans were killed and the security of our country was changed forever. In the aftermaths of the attack, not only did a heightened sense of hysteria strike the United States, but the need for war, or retribution seemed inevitable and necessary. After Osama Bin Laden ruthlessly had our country under attack, the U.S fought back in a search to capture the Al Qaeda leader and have him executed. The war against terrorism is amoral because yes, people are killed out of revenge, but most would see this as necessary in order to increase the safety of our country.

One piece of art displaying righteous retribution is the poem “The Singer in Prison” by Walt Whitman. The poem tells a story of a singe who visits a prison and sings to the prisoners. As they are all caught up in her melody, she walks calmly past the prisoners and urges them to look forward to death as a “heavenly pardoner”. The poem shows that Whitman was ever so impressed by the idea of condemnation and retribution. Instead of believing God’s forgiveness as a righteous pardoning of criminals’ sins, death is the only source of revenge.

Asher.p2.t1.Edwardian Era Synthesis

Asher.p2.t1.Edwardian Era Synthesis

by Calvin Chan, Jane Lu, Christina Yang, Brianna Loo

Whether violence, at its core, is amoral or immoral is a question that has found its way into modern society in the 1950s and 1960s. With the emergence of the “hippy” generation, society became ecstatic about “make[ing] love, not war.” Of course, as the trend tempered into moderation, society once again turned to violence. Society turned to violence for punishment. For retribution. Nowadays, politicians in favor of waging war debate on the edge of why unconditional violence, disturbed not by morality or ethics, is the solution to many problems. This sensibility that justifies war as amoral violence, however, dates far back to the termination of the Edwardian Era, the birth of World War I (birth of war? there’s irony in that, in case it eluded you, reader).

September 3^rd, 1939. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain officially announced that Britain and Germany were at war. Public announcement? Not exactly. More like a rich piece of literature that Chamberlain used to assert to the general public that war was necessary. Upon further thought, more like rich, amoral bullshit that Chamberlain used to justify to HIMSELF the necessity of violent retribution. Chamberlain hid excuse after excuse behind the extravagant diction of his public oration. Of course, the cliché excuse of “hav[ing] done all that any country could do to establish peace” was immediately used. Furthermore, Chamberlain conveyed his justification through analysis of his opponent, claiming that Hitler could only be stopped by force. “[Hitler’s] action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.” Hitler favored violence as a means of opportunistic gain; Chamberlain decided to use violence against him. How ironic. And to top it off, Chamberlain bathes his audience in a pool of pathos, characterizing the enemy with a mass of loaded words. “For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against - brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution.”

Of course, we (team 1) are in no way condoning the actions and motives of Adolf Hitler or the Nazi movement. We’re just merely criticizing humanity’s justification of war in general. ALL WARS. Because in the millennia that mankind has lived on this earth, their justifications for “amoral violence” have not changed at all. These justifications exist only as weak excuses that persuade the overly gullible that we must kill to prevent some strange, radical tyrant from killing others.

ash.P4.T9 edwardian era synthesis

There is a deep connection between immorality and amorality; both are the root of violence, crimes, and general inhumanity. However between the two, amorality is far more dangerous. Why? Because amorality allows common people to go far beyond their natural limit for cruelty, by simply rationalizing their actions, by being indifferent to whether something is right or wrong, they can separate the shame of their deeds from their hearts. Violence as an overly used cliché would say: is not the answer, however in another overly used response: it is the only way. It is never moral to use violence; under any conditions it is not moral or in fact reasonable to obtain compensation for a wrong by inflicting an equally painful one onto the other. After all killing someone as retribution for killing someone else just leads to two dead people. However due to humankind’s irrational, emotional nature, people often do so anyway, but out of emotion. War on the other hand takes the “just” but arguably immoral retaliation, and turns in into a noble goal, in which killing others not only acceptable in society but also applauded, as long as it's the enemy. The soldiers are either choosing not to question themselves and instead force a mental image of the enemy as abominable or even worse, simply not caring. A piece of art that I thought would properly demonstrate this would be a picture of a rabid (bug eyed, frothing at the mouth, gaping jaws) gorilla wearing a German helmet and possessively holding a woman who is desperately screaming for help. A caption reads from the top “Destroy this mad brute”.

http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Propaganda14.jpg

wyl.p6.t4 Edwardian Synthesis

Edwardian Synthesis
During World War I, a significant event in the Edwardian era, many horrible atrocities were committed against enemy armies in the name of freedom and revenge. A desire for violent retribution was used to persuade young men to join the United States army and help defeat the Germans. It was often believed that the punishment received by the “Huns” was deserved because they had attacked innocent American boats and citizens with their underwater submarines. The Huns had also offered to help the Mexicans take back Texas with the Zimmerman note. The Americans felt they deserved to fight back, as displayed by the propaganda poster stating, “Destroy This Mad Brute, Enlist U.S. Army.”
In the picture, a brutal German soldier, drawn as a primal gorilla, is carrying a fair maiden. He is killing enemy soldiers with a club that says “kultur,” suggesting he has none. He also has a helmet that says “militarism,” implying he fights for the wrong reasons. The picture justifies Americans killing Germans because Germans are simply without morals themselves. It is okay to act amoral against one who is immoral.
Violence as retribution is always immoral because, once humans throw away justice and ignore the rule of law, they have lost that which makes them civilized. However, the propaganda tries to suggest that brutal violence in war is amoral because something cannot be considered immoral if both sides act in that manner. Morality is simply thrown out the window when humans fight each other. Winning a war is not about morality; it is about survival.
Works Cited
"Destroy the Mad Brute." American Neutrality. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .
"Edwardian Era." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. .
Team 4: Cody Dunn, Stephen Hwang, Carlton Lew, Tyler Wong, Rin Sone

Edwardian Era Synthesis- Asher

To completely come to an understanding of the difference between immoral versus amoral, will require the knowledge of the two subjects. Immorality is known where a set of rules referred to as morals are knowingly and willingly broken and often holds a negative connotation. Amorality on the other hand is more of the lack of knowledge of the moral conduct at hand; or even in some cases where morality does not apply to a subject. When weighing the difference in the two moral measurements, immorality seems to hold the negative feel. This is so because of the nature of knowingly breaking a moral conduct as compared to breaking morality due to a lack of the presence of morality or lack of/knowledge. Amorality is a rare sight to be seen, because everything in society holds its own morals, is becomes very difficult to find a matter that holds no morals at all. Sigmund Freud, a citizen of the Edwardian era came forth with this concept that all humans have their own morals, but when society first started it began with a amoral setting that lead to the creation of morals, and immorality. Similarly discussed, Joseph Conrad, and his novel Heart of Darkness displays this concept the amorality of humans, when confronted with trials, mayhem, and violence.

This is where a conflict arises, and there is to be a dispute about topics with no real answer. Everyone has heard the cliché, “ an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. this has to relate to the topic in the sense that, Is a violent act done in retaliation and retribution acceptable? This is where the debate becomes amplified with another question and debate about why, even though violence in considered immoral, is revenge considered socially moral and accepted to a certain degree? Why do people learn to accept retribution and revenge when it still holds the effects of the negatively of violence and the immorality that it holds? This is a topic that requires debate; society has eaten away at this immoral act and given us the belief that retribution is alright within in the laws of the state and nation. This Era basically questions the ethics and morals that one live by, and the true integrity that it holds to society. Socially speaking, it displays the loopholes that are morphed from how ever one interprets immorality and amorality.

Team 6 aka Team Unicorn aka Kevin Cheung, Alex Park, Bryce Cheng, Raymond Yonami, aka Sun Kang, aka Han etc...

Asher2012.p2.t3 Edwardian Era Synthesis

To understand in what contexts violence is immoral versus amoral, one must first understand what the fundamental difference between the terms is. Immorality is generally accepted as being in a state where a code of morals is actively and knowingly being broken. Amorality on the other hand is the state of there being a complete lack of a moral code or a decision to completely disregard moral beliefs. For these reasons, immorality is generally considered much worse because it involves someone knowing how bad their actions are but still participating in them, while amorality is generally looked upon as ignorance of moral codes; the same choice is not involved. Amorality is often seen as the something which is at the heart of basic instincts, something that is not common amongst average people because they now adhere to a moral code that society has agreed upon. This concept was analyzed by Sigmund Freud, who lived during the Edwardian era. He boiled down the state of amorality as being the “Id” of human existence, the very base and primal instincts that function without restraint deep at the heart of every human. This same concept is analyzed in Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which portrays the amorality of man when confronted with chaos and violence in the African interior.
An important question that is then raised by these definitions is when is violence (which is generally considered to be immoral) when done as retribution, immoral. In looking at what the moral codes of the modern era are, we feel that violence as retribution is always immoral; all that is trying to be accomplished is revenge, a feeding of the Id, of what our most basic human instincts demand. So why is one violent act in return for another socially acceptable? We generally justify violent retribution, such as the death penalty, as an attempt to protect society; if we punish a criminal or someone who has committed an act of violence with violence; it is merely being used as a deterrent to future violent acts. Although this is what is generally accepted by many in the populous, other still say that these actions only produce a viscous circle of violence that ends up haunting society. Another question is the amorality of violence, which is generally accepted to be seen in times of war. This concept rang loud and clear throughout World War I during the Edwardian Era. Violence was committed on a scale grander than any other, nearly 9 million people were killed on the battlefield, and the violence was often considered amoral. In war, violence can be considered amoral because of the fact that people are often fighting for their lives, and are often forced by their superiors to commit violent acts. Because the choice in the violence one commits is taken away, violence in wartime can be considered amorality instead immorality. Art can be used to justify violence as retribution, and an example of this can be seen in the World War I poster titled Enlist! by Fred Spear. This piece of art from the Edwardian Era portrays a mother and her child drowning after the sinking of the Lusitania. The image was supposed to incite anger amongst the British populace, and to help justify the disastrous amount of violence occurring in World War I. By using an emotional appeal, the government and society as a whole tried to justify the violence of world war as a necessary catastrophe which was being committed as retribution for equally heinous acts.

August Mawn, Thomas Allen, Daniel Pon, Zachary Gershman

edwardian synthesis by TEAM 8 SWAG

Violence as retribution is always immoral because, once humans throw away justice and ignore the value of one’s life; they lose the morality which makes them civilized. However, the propaganda tries to suggest that brutal violence in war is amoral because something cannot be considered immoral if both sides act in that manner. Morality is simply thrown out the window when humans fight each other. Winning a war is not about morality; it is about survival. During World War I, a major event during the Edwardian Era, this concept became more apparent. Even among those trying to convey “peace and love”; violence was everywhere. Propaganda used this violent retribution to drive men’s desire to join the army. Many joined for the thrill and also because if they joined, they were courageous and brave. But did this war make retribution amoral? We believe that even though World War I was used to stop much terrorism, it is still immoral rather than amoral, because although the Germany was taken down many innocent people’s lives were lost, including most Germans. However, we also believe that if violence was only used against one that was immoral then the act is now amoral.

Most artists (poets) expressed their hatred towards the war through poetry, displaying the dangers of the war and immorality of using violence as retribution. Although most viewed the war as immoral, some believed it to be heroic. For example, the poem "In Flanders Fields" by John McCrae displays the courageous aspect of war. The poems talks about soldiers dying on the battle field and they are audacious and daring men sacrificing themselves for the good of the country and getting society a step closer to peace on earth. Basically, according to McCrae, violence is okay as long as it gets us to a common goal of peace; and those who die are always honorable and did what was right.

During the Edwardian Era, conflicts rose about the globe and violence as retribution was brought into society. Even though majority of the human population was involved in war, it still doesn’t justify the violent retribution. Violence as retribution is almost always immoral.