You are morally responsible for an act when your country's charter assumes that you have the awareness of your own acts, and an awareness of the impacts and consequences your acts, which implies that you are able to accept the consequences of your acts. In a court of law, you are held as responsible for your own acts.
Now, the main problem to me (at least, in Canada, where the age of moral responsibility is 18 years old), is illustrated by the following example/anecdote: If I were to go to a friend's house drunk and commit some vandalism, the law would hold my parents responsible because I am only 17. I find this ridiculous because I am aware of both the acts I committed and the consequences of getting drunk (on the other hand, I always thought alcohol simply erased any inhibition which eradicates any morality, restriction, releasing the real beast which we all are, but that is another debate).
When do you think we should be considered as completely conscious of our own acts?
Here is a little list I made up so we can focus on specific points:
- Sexual consent
- Homicide/Murder
- Robbery/Thieving
- Illicit substances consummation (Drug/Alcohol)
- Gambling/Lottery
- Sexual/Violence/Swearing contents' visualization
EDIT: I'd wish to thank Vrael for the help to clarify this post
<3
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 6 2009, 4:32 am by payne.
None.
From the time you're born people should be responsible of such acts, and if not from the time you're born, maybe 5 years old sounds good enough to me. If you're doing such immoral things at a young age, I think you're a rotten egg and should be dealt with accordingly. Being pardoned only allows the person to think that the act is accepted by society; its bad precedence. Unless trial proves rationale for such things, punishment is necessary.
This topic made me think of ageism and how it is actually a serious problem which is completely overlooked in the United States.
None.
From the time you're born people should be responsible of such acts, and if not from the time you're born, maybe 5 years old sounds good enough to me. If you're doing such immoral things at a young age, I think you're a rotten egg and should be dealt with accordingly. Being pardoned only allows the person to think that the act is accepted by society; its bad precedence. Unless trial proves rationale for such things, punishment is necessary.
This topic made me think of ageism and how it is actually a serious problem which is completely overlooked in the United States.
I always thought kids didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they were 7 or 8 (a teacher had told me this once). But I just found this article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101542962 which says otherwise. I don't buy it. Kids that young have thought processes that work TOTALLY different than we do. They are not little adults.
The other thing is, I know it's take toddlers till they are about 3 (perhaps 2-3) to understand
theory of mind. Which is why 'peek-a-boo' works.
This seems to be straying a bit off-topic, but it did seem relevant to yenku's suggestion that kids should be responsible for actions at such young ages.
None.
Yeah, the whole "from the time you're born" thing may have been an exaggeration, I like 7 or 8 also.
None.
I remember watching a science documentary in my English courses a few months ago and it was saying that animals (monkeys, in fact)
knew what could be right and what could be wrong instinctively. (That was a side-note, a bit off-topic too)
To come back to the subject, are you sure 7-8 years old child would really be able to
correctly interpret situations?
- Sexual consent: At this age, I surely wanted to fuck a girl... everyone saying it was so great and all this stuff... but what if (because at this age, you just haven't experienced serious love experience and saying "I Love You" is pure bullshit) later on, I'd regret such an act because I wouldn't have made it for the first time with my true lover (which isn't my situation, but anyways)
- Homicide/Murder: At this age, you do not even have your own personality completely defined... and you do not even know how to handle certain situations which cause you rage or things like that. You are too "primal" on your act to say you actually have though up before acting. On the other hand, I do understand that the kid needs to get a minimum of responsibility in order to "learn from his errors".
- Robbery/Thieving: This, I do agree... at this age and even before, you do know the consequences of such an act because you've already experienced it with toys or things like that, but still, at this age, you do not steal a bank. It's more like gums or sweeties...
- Illicit substances consummation (Drug/Alcohol): 7-8 is maybe too young considering the fact that these substances removes even more lucidity to your acts, no?
- Gambling/Lottery: I don't know why a 7-8 years old kid shouldn't play something if he does know what he is playing (talking of rules and things like that)... I agree on this one
- Sexual/Violence/Swearing contents' visualization: I'd say any age for this... I always though the censor was pure bullshit
None.
I'm not big on saying kids can't do this or can't do that. That's a very adultist view, which is contrary to what I feel is true. I can safely say at 7-8, even 5-6, I was completely lucid in my actions. I could make decisions without help from someone else. If I can do that, I should be able to be held accountable. That's the problem with today's society. We're always trying to find someone
else to blame. Blame video games! Blame the media! It's the parent's fault (even if it is, doesn't detract from the fact that the kid acted). A lot of the time, it's not even the parent's fault. A lot goes on behind their back that they have no say in, such as school or peer groups among the kids (kids being 6-17).
If you're drunk, it doesn't detract from your actions. You did something, and even if you "couldn't hep it" 'cause you were drunk, it doesn't mean you should get off scott free, or even have a lesser sentence (not necessarily meaning jailtime, btw).
None.
If we base our reflection a bit on Freud's book "Short of Psychoanalysis", we know the subconscious has three forms acting over you: the "You", the "Over-You" and the "This".
"This" is what tend to make you realize a wish on the spot without consideration for your environment or your survive.
"You" will restrict these pulsions to what you can actually do. It will convince your brain not to make you do something that would encounter your survive.
"Over-You" takes in count the morale and ethics of your environment. It came along with the concept of the society.
Knowing this, you should be aware that the kids must develop the Over-You which will permit them to act normally into society. At what age it is developed, I do not know, but that's not the point: saying that at 5 or 6 years old you were completely lucid over your actions is probably a lie: you know, it's funny how kids wants to commit suicide at any little obstacle of their life (like when your heart is broken for the first time) and it is because they do not understand completely/correctly the situation and needs the support of their parent. We've seen kids of 9 years old killing their parent for very stupid things like "he broke my toy" and are you seriously sure that he knew this would have a
huge repercussion over the rest of his life? I do not.
None.
Well, Morals are a learned concept, so I guess it depends on how fast of a learner the individual is.
None.
Everything is always relative, but still, we human try to establish norms over their systems...
None.
I am completely in favor of having a standardized age of legality. One example of lack of cogency as a child in my own life is when I became a confirmed catholic. Even at age 10 (which is much past the 7-8 you guys were presenting), I know now I did not possess the mental faculty needed to truely decide the issue of whether or not I should have been confirmed as a catholic. Even now I'm not sure I am completely capable of making a real decision, with one major, important difference. Now I am sure that I am capable of understanding the decision itself. Sure, an 8 year old may know that killing someone is wrong, but I seriously doubt he or she understands the true meaning behind his or her acts. There is good reason to have a legal age of majority, even if there are cases where perhaps a 16 year old may be just as cogent of the issue as an 18 year old.
I can safely say at 7-8, even 5-6, I was completely lucid in my actions.
If this is not made in jest, then you must be a prodigy of some sort, and this clearly does not apply to the majority of cases in today's world.
And Payne, in english, the translations of Freud's subconscious are This: Id, You: Ego, and Over-You: Super Ego.
None.
I agree with Vrael, though we still need to determinate at what age someone should be able to invest subjects such as:
- Sexual consent
- Homicide/Murder
- Robbery/Thieving
- Illicit substances consummation (Drug/Alcohol)
- Gambling/Lottery
- Sexual/Violence/Swearing contents' visualization
And Payne, in English, the translations of Freud's subconscious are This: Id, You: Ego, and Over-You: Super Ego.
Rofl, sorry xD I tried to do some literal translation, haha >.<
None.
I can safely say at 7-8, even 5-6, I was completely lucid in my actions.
If this is not made in jest, then you must be a prodigy of some sort, and this clearly does not apply to the majority of cases in today's world.
It's not. I just had a good upbringing. The only difference between me then and now, other than some slight maturity issue, is that I've been presented more information now than I had when I was younger.
None.
There's always things we didn't know how to face until we met them...
We learn from our errors/experiences thus increasing comprehension's ability over the years ;o
None.
I can safely say at 7-8, even 5-6, I was completely lucid in my actions.
If this is not made in jest, then you must be a prodigy of some sort, and this clearly does not apply to the majority of cases in today's world.
It's not. I just had a good upbringing. The only difference between me then and now, other than some slight maturity issue, is that I've been presented more information now than I had when I was younger.
Do you really mean to say that age 6 or 7, you were properly aquainted with the consequences of taking a particular stance on such issues as religion, the role of law in a functioning society, gay marriage or just marriage in general, raising children, paying taxes, the issues that vandalism and theft cause a society and how to deal with them, ect? Even now you might not know as much about them as you think (I at least find that the more I know, the less I know in comparison to the real complexity of the world), and I would hardly expect a 7 year old to be able to properly deal with these issues. Perhaps I am mistaking your usage of the word "lucid" to mean more than it really does. If you mean it in the basic sense, then I was also "lucid" at that age, meaning that I understood what I was doing, and that things like stealing or killing were bad because they hurt other people. At that age however, such a label is probably only the result of the moral compass inherited from the parents, and not completely understood by the child. Let me know what you mean by "lucid."
As for your list payne:
With sexual consent, I am in favor of the current laws (at least where I live). A child at 14 years of age can consent, and his or her partner must be within 4 years of age and at least 14 as well, else it is statutory rape. The 4 year limit to me at least seems likely to provide a block against sexual abuse (from an older partner taking advantage), while still affording the child reasonable rights in the subject matter. One downside I think is there is a rather big difference between 14 and 18, but with the current setup it seems likely to give the abused plenty of legal defense, and in reality, if there are two consenting kids they can just not tell anyone about it and use some form of contraception and they'll be fine.
Homicide is trickier. What's really the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old killing someone? Oftentimes, nothing I'd imagine. However, where I live people over 16 can be tried as an adult for the crimes they commit if certain things can be proven (probably related to the cognizance of the perpetrator). In the defense of the teenager, if they're in a position where they're killing someone, there could be other causes to look at, like abusive parents or drugs related. I can see where it could be hard to blame someone for dealing poorly with a situation that they aren't developed enough to handle.
None.
With sexual consent, I am in favor of the current laws (at least where I live). A child at 14 years of age can consent, and his or her partner must be within 4 years of age and at least 14 as well, else it is statutory rape. The 4 year limit to me at least seems likely to provide a block against sexual abuse (from an older partner taking advantage), while still affording the child reasonable rights in the subject matter. One downside I think is there is a rather big difference between 14 and 18, but with the current setup it seems likely to give the abused plenty of legal defense, and in reality, if there are two consenting kids they can just not tell anyone about it and use some form of contraception and they'll be fine.
I totally agree with you,, but just for the kick, do you think some people creates their own trouble by reasoning like "I'm pretty sure for the majority of the society, this would be a trouble... it must be one for me too"? To illustrate my thoughts, let's talk about a little girl of 13 years old wanting to have sex with a boy of 19 years old and she really wants it and everything. Later in her life, she'd confess that to some friends/parents and they would go like "Oh my god, you've lost your virginity with someone you didn't love" or things like that and you make the girl feel guilty which could push her to complain about this boy's comportment.
Girls sexual's maturity is supposed to be reached way before boy's and I wonder if a girl of 13 years old (because parents do talk about the importance of love and the child makes a relation with the fact the he must not do things with anybody) is "smart" enough to be considered as aware of her acts.
Homicide is trickier. What's really the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old killing someone? Oftentimes, nothing I'd imagine. However, where I live people over 16 can be tried as an adult for the crimes they commit if certain things can be proven (probably related to the cognizance of the perpetrator). In the defense of the teenager, if they're in a position where they're killing someone, there could be other causes to look at, like abusive parents or drugs related. I can see where it could be hard to blame someone for dealing poorly with a situation that they aren't developed enough to handle.
I'm pretty sure at the age of 16, when you kill someone, you have a "good" reason to do it and have thought about it before moving to the action, no? Though 15 can be trickier, as you're saying. I do not know what to think yet :S
None.
most basic form of morality
Its called conscience. And
Psychopaths are born without, not made without. So what you believe is so untrue.
If a child picks up a gun, thinking it's a toy, and accidentally shoots a man in the head with it, then that's a tragedy, but the child is not morally responsible. There was severity, but no intent -- the child did not intend to have a chunk of metal tear through an innocent bystander's body at four-hundred-plus miles per hour, and they likely didn't understand that that would happen.
Now let's say there's a child who understands that guns are bad, but doesn't know how bad. And this child gets pissed off at a classmate and finds a gun (perhaps an unsecured one owned by a parent). He shoots the classmate, without realizing that the act would be potentially lethal and excruciatingly painful. The shooter in this case, does not have intent. They have partial intent, to be sure -- they meant to inflict harm. But they did not intend to inflict nearly as much harm as they actually did, and they did not understand the risk of inflicting such harm. As such, they are not criminally responsible.
However, it's also entirely possible for a child to willingly murder someone with a gun. Let's say that a man takes his first-grader son out with him to go hunting, and he does this on a regular basis. The child, despite his age, learns what a gun is, and how lethal it can be. So if that child were to then get pissed off and shoot a man in the head, then he would be morally responsible and should be tried as an adult, because he had full knowledge and intent and the crime was severe.
And to decide which would be the case would be impossible, unless you had a mind-reader with you.
I think your theory of right and wrong is very wrong. If such morality were to be in place to judge our fucked up society, then we would tear ourselves apart. We not only judge the action of one by intent, conscious of action, but we also judge the action itself, and the result that came of the action.
None.
I don't understand why this is a problem.
If you are 17, and want to be held responsible, then be responsible enough
not to get drunk and vandalize. So ya, you can be morally responsible at age five just by saying no to something.
Well the problem is, nobody wants to get held responsible. You are forced to be held responsible.
None.
