Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

A child=An adult?

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:30:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Define "child" and "adult".
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:30:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Define "child" and "adult".

Child: A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
Adult: A person who is fully grown or developed. Having attained full size and strength. Generally 18+.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 7:19:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

It determines how much value you place on the number of years one has lived. Most of us see how "tragic" it is when a child dies versus a 92 year old man who, "it was his time".

I myself don't make that distinction when another human is the cause of death via murder. They are both tragic and not one more than the other.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 2:48:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Killing children horrifies people more. Adults have always been fair game in wars, fights, revenge, etc. Children are theoretically innocent, so killing them always seems senseless by comparison.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 3:57:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Got to agree with Sargon as there is no absolute rule for these situations. However, in a probabilistic sense of maximizing good in the world killing the child is probably worse. Why? 1) The child has greater potential to bring more good into the world than the adult. 2) The child (most likely) has more years to receive gratifying experiences in the world. Of course these statement heavily depend on each individual case, however this seems like a good logical outline assuming the two individuals are similar in how much good they spread/receive.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:05:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Yes, always. And thats how it should be. I dont really knw of many situations where that would not apply. Children should alwaya be held in that regard.
Quan
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:54:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always thought we generally have confusing opinions on this topic. Most would consider killing a child to be worse than killing an adult. Lesser acts of violence, however, are acceptable only against children (i.e. you can't "discipline" an adult.)
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 12:46:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 10:05:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Yes, always. And thats how it should be. I dont really knw of many situations where that would not apply. Children should alwaya be held in that regard.

Please use spellcheck:
*that's
*know
*always

What about a case where the child grows up to be a criminal and the adult a philanthropist? From a utilitarian standpoint, any case where the adult generates more good in the world and receives more "happy" experiences then the child should be killed.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 12:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:46:50 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 7/22/2013 10:05:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Yes, always. And thats how it should be. I dont really knw of many situations where that would not apply. Children should alwaya be held in that regard.

Please use spellcheck:
*that's
*know
*always

What about a case where the child grows up to be a criminal and the adult a philanthropist? From a utilitarian standpoint, any case where the adult generates more good in the world and receives more "happy" experiences then the child should be killed.

That's why we don't take a utilitarian standpoint on all things haha.

The nature of a child is largely unknown until it reaches adulthood. We can't say for sure whether or not a kid is going to be a rapist or a rocket scientist until he or she actually is one.

The general mindset of the public has always been that we should give people a fair shake before we decide if they deserve to live or not. If it wasn't that way, we would just go around killing off all the kids in the slums so they don't become gangsters.

A child =! An adult.

Until society feels otherwise, it shall be that way.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:46:50 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 7/22/2013 10:05:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Yes, always. And thats how it should be. I dont really knw of many situations where that would not apply. Children should alwaya be held in that regard.

Please use spellcheck:
*that's
*know
*always

What about a case where the child grows up to be a criminal and the adult a philanthropist? From a utilitarian standpoint, any case where the adult generates more good in the world and receives more "happy" experiences then the child should be killed.

If you feel the need to point out these spelling mistakes, id say you need a vacation. They will continue.

We aren't talking about children tht grow up to be criminals. We are talking about children. Jus plan old children. And given that children, even at the age of 17, do not have the cognitive skills to make healthy adult choices. And you can not expect a child to contribute anything to the world. Why would you. They are children. A child should not hav to have a reason to be protected. Do you have any kids?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:58:38 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/22/2013 12:46:50 PM, Orangatang wrote:
At 7/22/2013 10:05:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Yes, always. And thats how it should be. I dont really knw of many situations where that would not apply. Children should alwaya be held in that regard.

Please use spellcheck:
*that's
*know
*always

What about a case where the child grows up to be a criminal and the adult a philanthropist? From a utilitarian standpoint, any case where the adult generates more good in the world and receives more "happy" experiences then the child should be killed.

That's why we don't take a utilitarian standpoint on all things haha.

The nature of a child is largely unknown until it reaches adulthood. We can't say for sure whether or not a kid is going to be a rapist or a rocket scientist until he or she actually is one.

The general mindset of the public has always been that we should give people a fair shake before we decide if they deserve to live or not. If it wasn't that way, we would just go around killing off all the kids in the slums so they don't become gangsters.

A child =! An adult.

Until society feels otherwise, it shall be that way.

Im sure half of us would be long gone if that were the case. I know I would be.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:39:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's why we don't take a utilitarian standpoint on all things haha.

The nature of a child is largely unknown until it reaches adulthood. We can't say for sure whether or not a kid is going to be a rapist or a rocket scientist until he or she actually is one.

The general mindset of the public has always been that we should give people a fair shake before we decide if they deserve to live or not. If it wasn't that way, we would just go around killing off all the kids in the slums so they don't become gangsters.

A child =! An adult.

Until society feels otherwise, it shall be that way.

I agree completely, was just using a hypothetical but since we will never know how a child grows up then the child's life typically is more important. But how about children who are already known to be murderers, plenty of those in our world. Kill the murderous child (child murderer seems confusing) or the adult philanthropist?
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you feel the need to point out these spelling mistakes, id say you need a vacation. They will continue.

Perhaps I do need the vacation regardless, I'm just try to increase literacy on the site. By the way, some people may not even understand you because these mistakes.

We aren't talking about children tht grow up to be criminals. We are talking about children. Jus plan old children. And given that children, even at the age of 17, do not have the cognitive skills to make healthy adult choices. And you can not expect a child to contribute anything to the world. Why would you. They are children. A child should not hav to have a reason to be protected. Do you have any kids?

You said you could not think of any case where it would be better to kill the child, I answered with a specific case. Please read my last comment above to see another. It is irrelevant if I have kids or not these are legitimate hypotheticals.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 2:03:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 1:39:47 PM, Orangatang wrote:
That's why we don't take a utilitarian standpoint on all things haha.

The nature of a child is largely unknown until it reaches adulthood. We can't say for sure whether or not a kid is going to be a rapist or a rocket scientist until he or she actually is one.

The general mindset of the public has always been that we should give people a fair shake before we decide if they deserve to live or not. If it wasn't that way, we would just go around killing off all the kids in the slums so they don't become gangsters.

A child =! An adult.

Until society feels otherwise, it shall be that way.

I agree completely, was just using a hypothetical but since we will never know how a child grows up then the child's life typically is more important. But how about children who are already known to be murderers, plenty of those in our world. Kill the murderous child (child murderer seems confusing) or the adult philanthropist?

The phrase that fits here would be "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

I think it can be accepted that children are easier to reform than adults are.

In some cases we are physically restricted from changing behavior.
i.e. people with serious mental debilitation.

However, for people who have normally functioning brains it is very possible to re-mediate bad behavior.

It's easier to change a child's mind than it is to change an adult's.

IF it was clearly impossible to re-educate the child then it would only make sense to kill them.

BUT again, we try to give everyone a fair shake in society.
Even adult sex offenders are given a chance to change their ways and re-enter society.

Louis Theroux has a nice documentary of this. Watch it if you want to kill some time.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 4:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 3:57:47 AM, Orangatang wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

Got to agree with Sargon as there is no absolute rule for these situations. However, in a probabilistic sense of maximizing good in the world killing the child is probably worse. Why? 1) The child has greater potential to bring more good into the world than the adult. 2) The child (most likely) has more years to receive gratifying experiences in the world. Of course these statement heavily depend on each individual case, however this seems like a good logical outline assuming the two individuals are similar in how much good they spread/receive.

I don't believe a court of law would agree. Generally one would get a larger settlement in a case of the wrongful death of a middle age person with a successful career than a child, because the older person has a verifiable trajectory of the monetary value he/she earned thus projected value had he/she lived versus a child who may or may not be successful in dollar terms in life.

We all might feel worse for the child passing, but feelings don't amount to much in the world other than maybe inspiring us to take political action to make changes.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 4:29:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 1:46:26 PM, Orangatang wrote:
If you feel the need to point out these spelling mistakes, id say you need a vacation. They will continue.

Perhaps I do need the vacation regardless, I'm just try to increase literacy on the site. By the way, some people may not even understand you because these mistakes.

We aren't talking about children tht grow up to be criminals. We are talking about children. Jus plan old children. And given that children, even at the age of 17, do not have the cognitive skills to make healthy adult choices. And you can not expect a child to contribute anything to the world. Why would you. They are children. A child should not hav to have a reason to be protected. Do you have any kids?

You said you could not think of any case where it would be better to kill the child, I answered with a specific case. Please read my last comment above to see another. It is irrelevant if I have kids or not these are legitimate hypotheticals.

I assure you literacy is not an issue here nor have I ever had a problem with people understanding me on this site. Fact. You still have not given me a reason. I said I can not think of a case were it is better to kill a child. You gave me a reason to kill a child that grows up to be a criminal. That would make the child an adult.

I didnt ask if you have kids to prove a point. But it is relevant. Atleast to me. I think people with kids would be more sympathetic toward this topic.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 5:20:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I assure you literacy is not an issue here nor have I ever had a problem with people understanding me on this site. Fact. You still have not given me a reason. I said I can not think of a case were it is better to kill a child. You gave me a reason to kill a child that grows up to be a criminal. That would make the child an adult.

I don't know if you didn't read the second hypothetical which I did point out or just chose not to respond to it. So I will restate it: Would it be better to kill a child who murders people (these actually exist) or kill an adult philanthropist? If this was your call, and you had no other information but this who would you decide to kill?

I didnt ask if you have kids to prove a point. But it is relevant. Atleast to me. I think people with kids would be more sympathetic toward this topic.

Fair enough, I do not.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 5:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 5:20:41 PM, Orangatang wrote:
I assure you literacy is not an issue here nor have I ever had a problem with people understanding me on this site. Fact. You still have not given me a reason. I said I can not think of a case were it is better to kill a child. You gave me a reason to kill a child that grows up to be a criminal. That would make the child an adult.

I don't know if you didn't read the second hypothetical which I did point out or just chose not to respond to it. So I will restate it: Would it be better to kill a child who murders people (these actually exist) or kill an adult philanthropist? If this was your call, and you had no other information but this who would you decide to kill?

I didnt ask if you have kids to prove a point. But it is relevant. Atleast to me. I think people with kids would be more sympathetic toward this topic.

Fair enough, I do not.

I didnt see it actually. I just dont think a child is capable of understanding the finality of death. Nor do I think they can fully understand consequence. Lets face it their grasp on reality isnt that tight. A child that murders justy isnt the same.

I would say save the child and refer you to CanWe Knows response. The only thing I agree with is wether a child can be reformed. I think the only way to truely know is to attempt to reform the child until the child is an adult. All this being said the question of the topic is which one is worse. Any answer could only be completely subjective. So jus because I say a childs death is worse does not necessarily mean I would always spare the child. Nor do I think children our exempt from our laws. A child you kills should propably be out in some type of institution.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:54:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:30:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Define "child" and "adult".

The Fool: Okay that Just awful.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 12:01:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 6:54:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:30:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Define "child" and "adult".

The Fool: Okay that Just awful.

It's important to know.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2013 12:19:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:18:26 AM, wordy wrote:
Is killing a child is worse than killing an adult?

In what way?

Legally? Not really.

Morally? I couldn't say.

In society in general? Well, society generally feels as though the killing of an "innocent" is worse, and thus reacts with greater outrage. Interestingly women are also often grouped into this when talking about indiscriminate killings (through terrorism/war especially) of "women and children". Whereas the deaths of adults males, while tragic, don't carry the weight of outrage as the killing of those viewed as having little to do with what led to their death.

it seems to follow that the murder of someone who couldn't defend them self, should also be viewed as worse. Though a man being randomly shot and killed, wouldn't garner the same outrage as a child being randomly shot.

The child has had little opportunity to live their life though, so perhaps this justifies a legitimate reason why society would be more outraged by an innocent life being cut short.

As others have said, there's no absolute rule or specific justification for this reaction. A child is viewed as innocent and has lived for a shorter period, thus the level of tragedy seems to be raised. Though I don't think this says anything about their inherent "value".
Debate.org Moderator