If babies are considered innocent, when do people cease to be innocent?
In my latest post, i asked the question of how moral would you be without laws guiding you? We are regarded as rational beings but act barbaric sometimes. These barbaric ways of acting is responsible for judicial systems, sanctions and prisons.
New born babies are considered innocent on the basis that they have no capacity to think through their actions before acting. They act based on impulses.
The question we are faced with now is at what point does one ceases to be an innocent child? Does it depend on age or it is based on physique (how grown you look)?
According to society, those who are at least 18 years of age are considered legally responsible. For the society, these people have attained the 'age of reason' and their actions can be judged accordingly. We are free but for you to actually pronounce that or say to your parent that you can now act as you please, it means you are 18 years of age.
In your opinion, do you think these people are truly rational beings? Should there be an age limit to rationality?
This topic is actually premised on the fact that 'age factor' cannot determine rationality. One does not cease to be innocent just because he or she is now 18 years old. You can be 20 years and still be innocent depending on your definition of the world.
Below are cases of kids below the age of 18 who did 'unethical' things at tender age.
1) Two 10-year-old boys lured a 2-year-old boy away from his mom in an England shopping mall in 1993, leading him to nearby train tracks. There, they mutilated the boy so badly, his autopsy couldn't reveal his actual cause of death.
2) In 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Spencer opened fire with a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle on an elementary school playground outside her home, her reason simply being, "I don't like Mondays." The school's principal and janitor died.
The above are cases of kids below the stipulated 18 years by law yet they committed what grown ups with the 'rational' ability might not do. Can we say they are innocent by age but adult by thinking or they are not innocent at all?
Obviously age has nothing to do with moral or immoral behaviors. It is however possible to link the incidents above to the films these kids watched (as the case were for some of the kids) but do these films influence them or they did what they have thought of doing before the films trigger it in them?
I do not think there should be age limit on rationality. The moment a kid is aware of his environment, recognizes his parent, knows that fire is hot, knife is used for cutting things, etc., the moment such kid should start being responsible.
Do you agree with my position or think babies are still innocent? If yes, when do they cease to be innocent? If they commit a crime, can we still say they are innocent? If yes, what do we mean by the word 'innocent'?
Thanks for reading my blog. Your boy @smyle the philosopher.
First of all, I'll say this are the type of children they sacrifice to Amadioha or thrown into evil forest.. But we also have to consider there age as well. 10years old are still kids and don't really have an idea of what they have done and most times this kids are influence by the type of famIly and environment they grow up in.
The second example u sited, d kid deserves to be thrown to jail. 16years old is grown enough to know what is morally good or bad.
You are very funny with your first paragraph.
You have point with the second one but law does not think 16 is frown enough.
INNOCENT just as the name implied is so simple and gentle to call but not easy to be on. @smyle you really had touch our heart here. Thanks for sharing
Being guilty or not guilty is relative
You didn't read the post sir!
Hahahahaha abi😂abeg give me flag boss...that guy deserves a flag!
Lols! I tire boss! 😂
The point is you cannot total blame the child who thinks he is of age or assumed to be of age for his crime or actions without looking at his/ her background. One can be 18 and be totally responsible for their actions yet another another would be 20 and does not know the consequences of his/her action because of their upbringing so being guilty or not is relative
@smyle what really makes baby considered innocent even when commit something wrong is nothing but the difference in intellectual thinking between an adult and the baby. Although some baby might able to differenciate between right and wrong but they lack intellectual ability to think before doing something on what consiquence the offence will cause either at future or in present moment. As for the adult who have the ability to think, considered the present and predict the future on what result his/her action will caused. That is the simple reason why baby mostly regret what they do while adult consider bad action as normal and most time dont regret.
I do not think there should be age limit on rationality. The moment a kid is aware of his environment, recognizes his parent, knows that fire is hot, knife is used for cutting things, etc., the moment such kid should start being responsible.
I really agree with you on that, i've also asked myself this question many times.
Some of these kids will commit serious crime under the cover of being considered innocent.
Well done @smyle
Today's topic is quite intellectually stimulating and engaging.
I will like to draw inferences for my argument or immediate reasoning from religious beliefs or point of view. For instance, from an Islamic point of view, in order to impart understanding about and practicing religious worship in a child, muslim parents are instructed to start educating them from age seven on how to observe five daily prayers. On attaining age ten, they should be rebuked or if necessary punished for refusing to pray or negligence. This points out that at attaining age ten, a child is bestowed with the ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong. He/she consequently becomes responsible for his/her actions.
However, the onus of guiding and leading them aright lies on the parents shoulder and the community/society in which they were brought up.
Conclusively, a child could be adjudged innocent before attaining age ten and should be held responsible for his actions afterwards. The parents, would also have a burden to bear in the sight of the Almighty especially if they failed in discharging their parental duties responsibly
I thought about this a long time as well... Great topic :)
Could it be that innocent people seize to be innocent when thought becomes active? Can there without thought be mischief?