I answered the question from a viewpoint of the person, voting 9-12 (or 9-18), the onset of puberty when one gains use of the adult apparatus but hasn’t yet lived an adult life.
For society, the most tragic age would be around 24-30, when most have finished their education, through retirement age, which partly explains why youth are recruited for the front lines in wars.
The teenage years I guess. For anyone who doesn’t reach adulthood death is tragic, so much of the broad range of life cut short. I think that a teenager who can see ahead to their life as an adult and then missing that is pretty bad. However, younger may be even worse. I still recall a man telling me how he once worked at a cemetery digging graves, he said it was a good job for him, but he couldn’t keep doing it because digging the short graves depressed him so badly.
The death of a parent with underaged children is the most tragic, as it has permanent, devastating consequences to innocent, fledgling people in addition to the life cut way short. So, the 30 - 55 age bracket for me. (At least in my social circles, parents with kids are all 30 - 50-yo).
While it’s agreed that scenario is tragic, death of a youth has even more permanent, devastating consequences to the innocent, fledgling youth.
This takes into account the likely extreme suffering of the parents, but is it really less sad when an orphaned 5-year-old dies than one with a loving family?
What if the child has many siblings? By this logic, that’s more people to miss the child, and thus more sad, but it kind of seems sadder when it’s the only child in the family dies, especially for the parents.
The question is absurd, but somehow must have an answer. When we hear on the news that a toddler has been the victim of a drive-by shooting, versus hearing the same about a 50-year-old, the former is surely more moving for most people.
I’m surprised more people don’t think the death of an infant is the saddest, as society kind of tells us we are supposed to place even an unknown infant’s life ahead of our own. Maybe that isn’t really society so much as overly vocal self-important new parents though, who expect the presence of their baby should cause everyone nearby to modify their behavior for the baby’s benefit.
All ages are tragic but I find it always breaks my heart when I hear of a young person just ready to start his journey as an adult suddenly being cut short. All the hopes and dreams and preparation suddenly just wiped out.
I voted 13-18. Old enough to have quite an investment in personality but not old enough to have had a chance at wider experiences.
Tragedy? Never. Cats, dogs, rats, fish, people; everything dies and it is not a tragedy when it happens. Nobody is guaranteed anything so how can it be tragic to get less of what you weren’t promised to begin with?
The question IS absurd, but I voted anyway for 9-12.
Why? Because that’s the age range my son is in. A few years from now, I’ll give a different answer, as I would have a few years ago.
I also remember learning this in a psychology class in college. A graph of fertility (age on X, fertility on Y) pretty much overlapped with a graph of intensity of feelings of grief following deaths.
I voted “absurd”. To me, the manner of death and age contribute equally to the degree of tragedy. The least tragic is death past life expectancy, painlessly, during sleep (in bed, not in a car while everyone else screams), of natural causes. I can’t point to most tragic, but it would likely include young, sudden, unexpected, family left behind.
A young bride here in Colorado was killed by lightning on the day of her wedding recently.
I’m of two minds about this - first, how tragic to die on the happiest day of your life; second, what better time to die than when you are the happiest you’ve ever been.
That’s pretty much my opinion. As the eminent philosopher R. Plant said, “All that lives is born to die.”
Yes, why be sad or even happy ever? It is irrational to experience these emotions as a response to the inevitable. Things simply are, there is no reason to mourn or celebrate.
:smack:
I’m surprised to see that so far about 30% have voted “this question is absurd.”
Really? Do you people really think that the death of the average 99-year-old is every bit as tragic as the death of a 9-year-old?
What if that 9-year old was destined to grow up to become a suicide bomber?
No, but the question is absurd because when you try to actually narrow it down to numbers, any logic falls apart.
I think 5 - 8 though probably.
Then is it tragic if they don’t die?
Here’s one data point that was discussed in Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal:
https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/wright-moral.html
There is no age when a death is most tragic . I was a heath aide and I had clients that lost a child from birth to adult and clients families grieving the lost of love one while they were still alive and 80 to 100 plus years old. A client lost her baby and 80 years later she was still grieving the lost of her baby another client lost her adult son and my client had Alzheimer disease so to her son dies everyday . She told me each time I saw her that her son had dies , it so tragic , in her mind this happen each day . I feel the cause of the person’s death will made it most
tragic not the age.