killing children

Avatar

smoking revolver
Valued Senior Member
on the spirits of recent russian hostage situation and how people regard it ->

Why is it considered that killing a child is a whole lot worse than killing an adult? Are the lives of people slightly older in age less valuable than those of small age? Do I have less right to live than those who are younger than me?
In all honesty I don't see the difference between killing an 8 year old person, a 20 year old or a 70 year old. All have equal right to live and all value their lives.
 
Actually I think it has to do with the human concept of innocence. Children are normally considered as pure, a white sheet. They have done nothing to anger god, and they have not yet gathered experience. Hence if you kill a child, you destroy an innocent being, a being that had absolutely no reason to die whatsoever.
To this concept you add the fact that most people are protective of children, it is only logical (from a biological viewpoint) that the offspring has to be protected. For women you can add the mother instinct that makes them even more protective of their kid.
Depending on the age of a child, death can even cause more emotion since humans are drawn towards beings/things that look "cute". Meaning that humans feel drawn to things with big heads and eyes (I think that is also true for most mamals).

Did I miss something? Yes, perhaps. Some parents tend to focus on their offspring, seeing it as the personification of their dreams and goals, and seeing a potential that the children may one day archieve the things the parents only dreamt of.

The sum of this is a strong emotional bond to children, resulting in great distress if a kid is killed.

Alas, I have to agree with you Avatar, I do not see a difference between killing an eight year old and a 20 year old. But then again, I am not a parent...
 
If you strip away all humane thougts and think of war.... If the children that fell victim in that event would have lived a few years more, they would be killing Chechens. So, in a sense, if you wanted to destroy your enemy fully....

I do agree, all have equal right to live. But don't start with the whole anti-war stuf, I beg!

I heard a program on a Russian radio yesterday. All appeared in greatest sorrow; it seemed like all wanted that war to end. They said that we have to be forgiving, otherwise conflicts never end. It is true, someone has to stop, forgive, and forget. I wonder what percentage of population of Russia wants to stop that war and when will the gov't follow that wish.
 
They have done nothing to anger god
religion..... oh please, I hoped that we are not so primitive...
they have not yet gathered experience
hmmm actually mathematically thinking a person that has experience is worth more because he has that added experience value ;)
Hence if you kill a child, you destroy an innocent being, a being that had absolutely no reason to die whatsoever.
I don't think that any of us has a reason to die, even if we might have smoked pot or cheated on exams.
To this concept you add the fact that most people are protective of children, it is only logical (from a biological viewpoint) that the offspring has to be protected.
on that I agree, but since we exceed 6 billion already it's no more a question on the preservation of our species........
Meaning that humans feel drawn to things with big heads and eyes (I think that is also true for most mamals).
things with big heads and eyes freak me out
Yes, perhaps. Some parents tend to focus on their offspring, seeing it as the personification of their dreams and goals, and seeing a potential that the children may one day archieve the things the parents only dreamt of.
true, which also means that we have to concentrate on achieving our dreams more
---------

so it's a part biological, part emotional thing
but not entirely logical
actually it's not logical
 
whitewolf said:
I do agree, all have equal right to live. But don't start with the whole anti-war stuf, I beg!
nothing to do with war. if it was, I would have posted this in politics or world events
 
The ethical code of a civilization is an amalgamation of the individual ethical codes of its members, especially its past members. For most people, ethics are rooted entirely in emotions, there is no logic to them.

Most people feel much worse about the death of a child than the death of an adult. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It is a pre-programmed instinct. Almost all humans, to a greater or lesser extent, have an instinct to protect children. We have to, because our children are helpless for a much longer proportion of their lives than any other animal.

So when somebody assassinates a building full of children, most people feel worse than if it were a building full of adults -- even a much larger building. It's being hypothesized that the bombing in Ossetia will have a more profound effect on the West's attitude toward Islam than 9/11. Because more children were killed in Ossetia than in 9/11.

Your position is sound and well-reasoned. Unfortunately for you, you're not in charge. When the news of the school bombing became known, most people were guided by their instincts rather than their reason.

Islam just shot itself in the foot. Notice how Westerners have already started dispensing with the subtle distinction of saying "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Islamic militants." It's just "Muslims" now, or some far more derogatory epithet.

This is not going to go down well. For decades the smaller countries made do by taking sides in the USA-Russia conflict and playing us against each other. Suddenly the USA and Russia are on the same side. The Russian embassy in Washington was so overwhelmed with Americans coming in to express their sympathy -- Americans crying in sympathy for the people who less than 20 years ago we believed to be irredeemably evil -- that the staff were speechless. The block around the building is covered with flowers knee deep. American children whose parents kept the Cold War going are walking in and making off-the-cuff speeches about how much sorrow they feel in their hearts for their brothers and sisters in Russia.

If the rest of the world thought that America as the only remaining superpower was hard to take, just let them wait until they see the new US-Russian alliance in action.

Move over, China. The big boys are back and they are really pissed off.

It's a shame that the roots of the Chechnya situation have almost nothing to do with what's going on in the Islamic world at large. The ethnic conflict between the Ingush people and the Ossetians has been going on for a couple of centuries, and was exacerbated by the Soviet treatment of the Ingushetians during WWII. Somehow they thought that they were Nazi sympathizers and exiled every single one of them to Siberia, leaving their houses for the Ossetians to move in.

The Chechnyans got involved in this because they have their own axe to grind with Russia. The Ingush extremists talked them into doing their dirty deed in Ossetia because it's so much closer and so much more poorly defended than Moscow, and besides most Ossetians are Christians and the Ingush and Chechnya people are both largely Muslim, so let's inject a little religious hatred into the brewing ethnic hatred.

So far, the politics of the 21st century are being shaped by ethnic and religious rivalries from the Dark Ages.

Go figure.
 
No, it is not logical. Not all human actions are logical. We tend to preserve our species even if there are a billion others around.

And I did not use god by my choosing, but many people believe in gods, I cannot change or omit that fact.

And I would also agree that there is no reason to die, but that point is just as good as falling back on god. Which I practically archieve through that statement.



Ah, thanks Fraggle Rocker, I knew I forgot a point. Children are helpless, that was it.
 
Children are helpless, that was it.
yup, when children and adults are in a room loaded with explosives and full of armed terrorists the children are a lot more helpless than the adults
also when carpet bombing a village a child is a lot more helpless when being in the same house as his mother.
please...
this is valid in street life, but not in nowaday military conflicts when on one side there are armed militants and on the other side there are civilians with no military training and nothing more than vacuum cleaners in their homes

but then if we look from the emotional point of view you are right
 
All this is, for the most part, based on emotion. Some even are of the opinion that an objective view is uncalled for when such an event took place.
In war it is unlogical to divide adult and young victims, there are only victims. But still, people are emotional.
 
There are plenty of reasons to die. For the good of a greater number of people, for the good of entire nation full of children and elders and adults, so that the offspring may live well, one may die. That is why we have wars. Soldiers die so that the rest of the nation may live well for many decades. And the Chechens apparently believed it is ok to sacrifice a few hundred people for the well-being of millions.

I have seen parents lose a child. A horror I hope I won't understand.

I think it's not so much of a child being more innocent/helpless than adult. It's more of an issue of a parent outliving his child; it goes against our biological instincts and translates into nightmarish emotional pain.

So far, the politics of the 21st century are being shaped by ethnic and religious rivalries from the Dark Ages.

In today's world, I feel as safe as I would in the Dark Ages. I think many do, which would explain the booming attraction of fantasy literature and mythology, the computer games, etc. All we need now are heroes that will liberate and protect us!
 
Last edited:
Of course, if a parent outlives his child, it makes no difference if the child is 7 or 70, the effect is the same.
 
In nature, children and the elderly seem to be the main targets.
I'd say some children from each generation should die, and the rest should be tested by experiencing hard dangerous times.
I think the survivors of this russian hostage crap will be better for it.

None of this has any bearing on how people should react to children killing though.
Its not like "children killing isn't that much worse than normal killing, so lets give terrorists a pass", certainly not.
Just because children killing is supposed to happen doesn't mean children killer killing isn't supposed to happen.
 
Yes, one could argue that revenge is in order. But I did not mention it because it would not answer the initial question.
Alas, revenge is based on the same emotions that make you feel compassion to those children or the families.

I suppose it is a subjective matter how the killer should be treated. If your philosophy has the concept "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" the terrorist could be in for a bad day.
Another option would be "forgive and forget".

Me, for my part, if someone would kill my realtives (one or more doesn´t matter) then I would make sure his lifespan would decrease. And depending on the circumstances his end might not be nice. But that is subjective.
 
In normal (more or less) circumstances, one could go to court and get at least some sort of justice. But when it is an international matter like terrorism, things get different. If you forgive and forget, that means you give in to the threat. Give in once, and you will be forced to encounter the same threat again and again, it will become the norm for people to demand things by means of terrorism. So the conclusion is to fight on; but for how long and to what extents and how?

I guess we have to accept this as new face of war and fight the enemy with the same or better weapons.
 
There are two possibilites, you win and annihilate or enslave (convertion is highly unlikely) your enemies, or your enemies annihilate or enslave you.

You cannot bring outlaws to justice in a court. If you give in, they will think you weak. Only successful way: Obliteration of resistance.
 
Avatar, maybe it is a contextual question that is being asked in a vacuum. For instance how were the children related to the situation before they were killed?

did they

1) get caught up in an enviroment they could not control?
2) partipate in a action that could incur violence
3) partipated due to adult influence around them
4) attempt to avoid the lethal situation unsuccessfully

ect ect....It is a hard question to answer when it is asked without a background....or context
 
I believe that the strong have a duty to protect those who can’t protect themselves but not those who won’t. Children are less capable than most adults are. To me one of the worst things that someone can be is a bully.
 
Children are less capable than most adults are.
Which is why, according to the universe, adults have a right to kill them.
It is the child's guardian's duty to protect it, not just random strong people. If the guardian is worth anything they can protect the child, if they can't the child doesn't deserve to live anyway because it comes from inferior stock which are incapable of protecting children. That particular strain of homo-sapiens is removed, they proved unworthy of existing on earth.
This system in action over time would lead to everyone being better at taking care of their children, because competent child-protecting ability would be favoured by evolution.
Understanding this automatically leads to one noticing the gross dysgenics occurring within the homosapiens species. All these inferior strains of homo-sapien are continueing to exist and reproducing each generation, branching out to create new inferior strains of homo-sapien. Now the world is overrun with inferior, unworthy, family trees that are having trouble with everything because they shouldn't be.
 
to answer the original question

children are less able to defend themselves
and also, if you kill a 90 year old, you might rob him of 5 years of life, but to kill a 5 year old robs him of 90 years of life
 
get over it, if you spend weeks greiving this then the enemy has time to reorganise and do it again, the russians need to improve their military tactics and tighten security by having people trained if not with a gun then some form of unarmed combat who is able to overpower them
 
Back
Top