killing children

I think Robtex has got closest to my point of view on this. Killings kids is worse, because they aren't voters, and therefore didn't contribute to the political situation which caused the act of desperation/terrorism.

Of course, this raises another issue. Is it worse killing kids in a democracy, than in a dictatorship. I mean, if adults don't get to vote either, ....
 
Dreamwalker said:
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.
Click to expand...


Correct!
 
phlogistician said:
I think Robtex has got closest to my point of view on this. Killings kids is worse, because they aren't voters, and therefore didn't contribute to the political situation which caused the act of desperation/terrorism.

Of course, this raises another issue. Is it worse killing kids in a democracy, than in a dictatorship. I mean, if adults don't get to vote either, ....
Click to expand...


Acutally i didnt offer an opinion i said it was too complex to answer without a context to use as a canvas. sorry i was ambigious.
 
robtex said:
Acutally i didnt offer an opinion i said it was too complex to answer without a context to use as a canvas. sorry i was ambigious.
Click to expand...

True, but the questions you asked were very relevant. The general (I wouldn't say you were ambiguous) direction was heading towards 'are the kids responsible for the situation that has provoked the attack', and my answer to that, is no, as they aren't voters, politicaly active, and haven't oppressed anybody.

It's not that kids are innocent little cherubs, just that they haven't pissed anyone off yet,and therefore, should be given the benefit of the doubt, IMO.
 
The distinction is purely emotional. There is no logical reason why one death should be worse than another. A life gets terminated. Not a tenth of a life, or 90% of a life - a whole life. To take it even further: how can any death considered premature, if everybody dies? But nobody thinks that way, fortunately. Our logic is based on expectation. Everybody expects a child to live to a "reasonable age", and an old man to die "soon", and it's that expectation that gets disappointed. But nobody knows the 90 year old man wont live to 120 (there are people of that age alive that live happy, fulfilling lives), and nobody knows the young man of 25 wouldn't die of a heart-attack at 30. Notice, both "only" lose thirty years of life. But one is considered more tragic. I think it reflects quite a lot on the way we value life - something worth thinking long and hard about...

The rational argument is based on the assumption that killing can be justified at all (whether within or without a system of justification, like a court or community). This is the kind of thinking emplyed by Phlogisitcian above, for example. The only reason it has ever been justified is because of the creation of systems that require real justice: i.e. a life for a life. But these systems also have to determine accountability (an age of reason, etc.). Another reason is war - which overthrows all justification and accountability. So maybe it might be worthwhile to ask: from what age should people be held accountable for their actions, if justice is to be absolutely applied? And if justice is not absolute, aren't we saying that emotional arguments carry more weight than justice: i.e. enough to sway it?
 
Parents want their children to be able to take over their wealth and material posessions when the parent dies. The parent also would like to have their childrens help when they get old and need assistance trying to get by. Parents see that children will be a ray of hope for the future of humanity for the children will hopefully learn from the mistakes of their parents. Children didn't start a war and children are not the ones who should be purposefully taken out and harmed.
 
What parents? Whose children? I don't think such a generalization is decisive - it supposes a parental instinct we all have, and an undeniable empathy. But none of it prevented those terrorists from killing children.

A parental instinct might explain some people's reactions - but then it isn't for any rational reason, like wealth or succession. Search your own feelings when you think about it - does any of those considerations apply? It's an emotional reaction, I would guess based on sensibilities we grew up with. If we grew up in a different society, we might have seen children as expendible. Adults can always make more children, but infants can't. Our sensibilities were determined by something else.
 
Adults cannot just go out and make babies for there is a timeline in which conception can occur.
 
Oh Dr.Lou, if only there were legal wavers enough in the world to keep me from being brought to trial for your murder or attempted murder, I would challenge you to a contest to the death. I would really like to know if you are just talking out of your ass about your wacky ideas on evolution. Remember, if I kill you then its my natural right to kill your children and dogs too, am I interpreting your ideology correctly?
 
If you can kill my children and dogs it's your natural right period.

I admit natural rules can't fit with todays world. Those kids were at school away from their family so that kind of screws everything up. If everything was the way it should be they would have been on their respective family estates playing with their brothers and sisters and cousins while the estate boundaries were heavily guarded by 200lbs mastiffs and shift taking relatives. If someone could defeat the family's defense, they'd have the right to kill the kids, dogs, eat the maise, rape the women, drink the ale and live in the great estate they just earned.
I'm not talking out my ass when I say I truely believe this is how human society should be, for the good of humanity and the planet.
This lifestyle would be our way of fitting in on earth, we'd be like the other animals, yet no less "human" than we are now. Somewhere we lost our way, and earth's deterioration and the deterioration of our species can be attributed to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top