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