Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism
Debate Rounds (4)
2. The actions that these terrorists coerce the children into doing directly causes the unlawful and immoral death of innocents.
3.Children are not consenting adults and cannot agree to these terms even if they were moral
4.The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism argument
2. You can not determine that those involved in suicide bombings will not be going to paradise as it is impossible to determine what, if anything, happens after death.
3. Your own cultural background may be obstructing your view on this issue
4. It can not be determined whether or not this is excusable by moral relativism.
Also, even if it were 100% true that suicide bombers go to paradise, it still does not make it morally justified. To take another life simply for one's personal gain is immoral. It is an unsustainable moral philosophy that would cause the breakdown of any society that condones it.
In conclusion, it is not the case that they are taking the lives of others for personal gain, but rather for a common purpose and therefore do not violate the moral philosophy that you claim they do.
Now you bring up the argument that the suicide bombings are being done, not for personal gain, but as a war tactic. While this may be true, I find it much more plausible that the war is an excuse to use the children for personal gain. Surely there are more effective weapons and tactics in war than using children strapped with bombs. Even if one would say that this was an effective war tactic because no one expected this from children, those days are long gone as everyone (in the countries where these bombings occur) are aware of the use of children and are no longer caught off guard.
in addition, the "All's far in love and war" saying is primitive and incorrect. Killing soldiers on a battlefield is permissible in war because presumably, all these soldiers have signed up for the services, and are aware of the risks. In the case of the children, they cannot consent, and are brainwashed from birth.
Without being in the position of these people or being able to see just how much they stem to lose in this, it can be determined whether or not their methods are crossing the line.
There are some things that we must accept as objectively morally correct, such as the continued existence of the species. Without the continued existence of the species, We would not even be able to have an argument on whether or not something is morally correct or not, because the species would no longer exist. Anything that is detrimental to the continued survival of the human race must be viewed as immoral and suicide bombers, killing of innocents, and immoral war tactics all fit that bill.
Given the way we have treated everything else in this world, I don't believe that we as humans are in any position of being able to decide what is or is not morally right in first place.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.