Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 915
- 70
- 44
This is sort of branching off from this thread here:
Is this evil girl really Japanese?
As stated by Derfel:
Hopefully this thread can serve to explain this difference in morality.
This is a bit off base of what Derfel was referring to with the starving kid, but why do we tend to adopt separate moral codes for children? For example, all things equal, if a child assaulted you would you defend yourself in the same way as if it was a grown person? Would you be more tolerant of the child? What if that same child attempted to kill you, would you still treat him/her the same? Are children somehow innately more "pure" or "innocent" than adults?
I personally believe our brains have been hardwired to protect and be more tolerant of children than adults because they are the future of our species. If they die off so does our species. That's not to say I don't have an emotional response if I see a child being beaten. One can in fact argue those very emotions are the triggers evolution put in our brains to protect our young. Again I am borrowing from Derfel (Hey he makes some good points ) when I say that our emotions are designed to override logic and reasoning. This is what drives people to sacrifice themselves for others even if logic and statistics say their chance of survival is slim. It's a risk that keeps the species going, in my opinion.
Is this evil girl really Japanese?
As stated by Derfel:
I both detest and adore human cruelty instinctively. If I was assaulted, my feelings would be different based on the identity of my assailant. If he was a poor, starving kid, I would want to disarm him and hand him over to the authorities inflicting as little pain as possible. If my assailant was a drug addict trying to rob me for his daily dose, my urges would tell me to ravage, to stab, to slash, to tear and to rip.
How can I explain this difference in terms of morality? I can't and I don't want to. My urges are irrational and illogical. It is pointless to describe and analyse, in terms of logic, something which does not observe logic in the abstract sense we have created.
Hopefully this thread can serve to explain this difference in morality.
This is a bit off base of what Derfel was referring to with the starving kid, but why do we tend to adopt separate moral codes for children? For example, all things equal, if a child assaulted you would you defend yourself in the same way as if it was a grown person? Would you be more tolerant of the child? What if that same child attempted to kill you, would you still treat him/her the same? Are children somehow innately more "pure" or "innocent" than adults?
I personally believe our brains have been hardwired to protect and be more tolerant of children than adults because they are the future of our species. If they die off so does our species. That's not to say I don't have an emotional response if I see a child being beaten. One can in fact argue those very emotions are the triggers evolution put in our brains to protect our young. Again I am borrowing from Derfel (Hey he makes some good points ) when I say that our emotions are designed to override logic and reasoning. This is what drives people to sacrifice themselves for others even if logic and statistics say their chance of survival is slim. It's a risk that keeps the species going, in my opinion.