The tragedy in Manchester has me thinking. Most people are shocked particularly because the victims were largely children (being an Ariana Grande concert). It would have been somewhat less of a big deal to people if the victims were all over 18 years old.
However - why do most people care more if something bad happens to a child, versus to an older person? Are children perceived as being more noble and virtuous, and incapable of evil? Is there any evidence that children are in reality more innocent and good than adults, or is it just an instinctual truism we believe because it’s in our genes to protect the young?
I think of all the childhood bullying and abuse of animals by children and in my mind they aren’t any better than adults, it’s just more forgivable because they’re young and more likely to change for the better.
I think “instinctive” nails it. We are taught to take care of kids all the way back to our own childhoods. “Look after your little sister”, “Be careful with the baby”, “Help your brother”. It all comes down to caring for, and about, those younger than us. So, when we see a child threatened, all those words come back and we jump into protective mode.
For women especially, there could even be a hormonal componanant, particularly if the woman has an infant or very young child. I’m talking off the top of my head here but I do know that women, indeed almost all female mammals, instinctively protect their babies right from birth. It follows that we all view harming a child as something against both nature and convention.
Assume the average life expectancy is seventy. If you kill a sixty year old, you’re taking away ten years of their life. If you kill a ten year old, you’re taking away sixty years of their life. So it’s a greater crime just on a numerical basis.
There’s also the factor that terrorist attacks (or any other attacks against civilians) are based on the idea that the citizens of a country are partly responsible for the actions of their government. That’s arguably true with an adult. But children have no responsibility for what the government of their country does.
You’re totally overlooking the issue of a person’s potential–both economic and otherwise. A middle-aged or older person may be able to work, or invent things, or otherwise contribute to society, but much of what they represent is in the past.
Whereas a child has many decades of potential contributions to society. This is one of the reasons why most people try to protect children–there is no test to predict who will be the next important scientist, inventor, author, or artist. Therefore, it is simply logical to err on the side of caution, and try to protect all children.
Another way to look at it is the duration of suffering, too. If a 70-year is paralyzed from the neck down in a terrorist attack, he/she might just suffer for only 15 more years. But a 10-year old paralyzed from the neck down in a terrorist attack might suffer for 60-80 more years.
This is a big reason, especially in the West. However, I do not buy the idea (held by some Westerners) that children are incapable of evil, or of knowing right from wrong. Most children know right from wrong perfectly well, and some children have been known to maliciously hurt animals, or humans, or destroy things, knowing full well that they are doing wrong.
I’m not sure I buy the whole ‘they have a longer life expectancy’ thing. I doubt most people would value the life of a 35 year old less than a 25 year old in the same way we might value that of a 10 year old above a 20 year old.
I think it’s partly the instinct thing, and partly that we feel an obligation to protect the most vulnerable. Why is it considered worse to assault an elderly woman in a wheelchair than a healthy, 6ft+, 30 year old man? Basically, because it’s easier.
In addition to being more trusting and more physically vulnerable, children’s minds are still forming. Childhood trauma can negatively impact the victims whole future where an adult is more likely to make a full psychological recovery.
I think most of the main ones have been mentioned.
For me it’s just sad they got to see the world, but didn’t really get a chance to find their identity and make a choice of what they wanted to do.
I learned about the world as a child, then made countless mistakes in my teens and twenties. It’s only since my late 20s I feel I have been comfortable in my own skin and really had my hands on the steering wheel.
The thought of dying in my teens is a very sad one.
And it ties into the thing of wasted potential. News programs will often mention if someone was a straight-A student, but even the ones who weren’t, who knows what they would would have accomplished?
(and no, I don’t see this as an argument against birth control or whatever. Totes different)
If one wishes to evaluate the moral worth of human life at different ages, I would think adults have the highest value.
Adults tend to have larger social webs than young children, so their death will cause more grief.
Society has poured more resources into adults, not only physical resources but social investment, e.g. parents, teachers, mentors, friends, psychologists, doctors, government workers, bosses, lovers.
Adults are more self-aware than children, especially young children or babies.
“When an old man dies, a library burns down.” – Amadou Hampâté Bâ
This whole perspective that news media takes on children being harmed or killed is sheer sensationalism. For example, this morning, my TV news show had film coverage from a helicopter of a police chase that ended in the speeding car plowing into another car, and then the two fugitives jumping out and running away.
But was that exciting enough for the news? Noooo. In the breathless description, the hapless victim of the car wreck was hardly mentioned. Instead, the anchorperson said, “…the offenders swerved through traffic at a dangerous rate of speed, BARELY MISSING TWO SCHOOL BUSES, before crashing into the car you see here, and then abandoning…”
I capitalized because she emphasized the school buses and paused for effect. I almost could hear the news editors saying to the person flying the helicopter, “…any kids in the car? No? How old is the driver? About thirty? Oh, fuck him then. Where are the school buses now?”
I’m of the opinion that nobody really thinks that kids are more moral or innocent, and nobody worries about the potential years lost when they die young. I mean, they may say they worry about these things, at an intellectual level, but I don’t think the concern about children being threatened comes from an intellectual place at all.
Many adults are parents. Most parents experience extreme attachment to their children, at an emotional and biochemical level. This causes them to generally see children as super-important, particularly regarding them being hurt. Even if you’re jaded and have no sympathy for the screaming kid in the restaurant, you still wouldn’t want to see them gutted because even when you’re sick and tired of your own kid, you would be very strongly effected were they gutted.
I feel this emotional reaction to the suffering of children accounts for 100% of society’s preoccupation with their safety. To the degree that any intellectual analysis performed seems cold and clinical.
I think the instinct to protect and take care of children is the biggest factor, though not the only one.
When I was a child myself, I used to wonder about things like charity appeals to “feed the children” or “help the sick kids.” What about the starving or sick or homeless adults, I wondered? Don’t they matter too? (And, as a corollary, does that mean no one will care about me and I will stop mattering when I grow up?)
When I got older, I realized that such appeals play on people’s instinct to protect and take care of children. But also, if you show adults in need, there’s at least sometimes a suspicion that those adults’ circumstances are their own fault, and that they could and should be doing something to help themselves. Children, as a general rule, are more helpless and less likely to be responsible for their own circumstances.
Are kids innocent in the sense that they don’t know right from wrong? Probably not. Are they innocent in the sense that they haven’t done anything wrong - at least anything relevant to a bombing - almost certainly. I think shunpiker nailed it. I’m not a parent, but people I know who’ve lost spouses, siblings and parents say the pain doesn’t compare to losing a child. There’s also the fact that a child is typically unable to defend him/herself; this is essentially the same reason we think it’s worse when a guy punches a woman than we do if a guy punches another guy. Of course, nobody can defend themselves against a bomb, but the reaction is rational even if the underlying premise is not.
There’s also the aspect that children are vulnerable, which I think elicits an extra dose of sympathy for them. They’re unable to fend for themselves or protect themselves. They’re fragile.
True, but many, if not the vast majority of people in attendance at the Manchester concert were teenagers, who, although not legal adults, are certainly not “defenseless” like a 3 year old or 6 year old is.
People seem to have a little bit less sympathy for teenagers, compared to small children. Though it depends, a 13 or 14 year old is a child while a 19 year old is not.