At what age do we become morally responsible for our actions?

[jpahmad]

I don't know if Stefan had already addressed this. He probably has. But can someone give me the quick philosophical answer if there is one. I see adults accusing little children everyday of being "bad" or "rotten" when seeing these children act out as a result of abuse at home. Can these children be considered evil? Assuming they can't, then at what point in their lives can they be labeled morally corrupt as opposed to victims of abuse?

[ribuck]

I don't see the point of trying to label another person as "morally corrupt" or otherwise.

 

As soon as children can understand the NAP, they should (in principle) make reparations if they transgress. In practice, a parent or responsible adult will make reparations on their behalf.

[june]

when we gain selfownership.because when you own yourself you also own your actions, and thus can be held responsible for your actions

[...]

.

[dsayers]

I don't think when a person becomes a moral actor can be defined by a number. It takes self-knowledge and understanding of the other, consequences, etc. While I had a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, I can honestly say that I was not fully morally responsible until I was 35 as a result of heavy propaganda and will-breaking inflicted upon me. That doesn't mean that if I had murdered somebody before that time, I shouldn't have been held accountable. This is why I specify FULLY morally responsible.

 

In case I'm not being clear, I can give an example of what I mean. In the past, there have been times I've called the police for something because I felt I was living in a paradigm where if I tried to talk to a neighbor about something, I'd be the bad guy. Present day, I view calling the police for anything that doesn't concern the initiation of the use of force to be an immoral act. One I was not responsible for before because I simply did not have the capacity to know better despite my relatively advanced age.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think when discussing spanking, it's paramount that we make it clear that it is assault that's being discussed. Or that voting is the initiation of the use of force. That taxation is theft. As Stef would say, we need to reveal the gun in the room. Otherwise, when discussing these things with other people, it's like we're talking about different things entirely.

[jpahmad]

O.k., let me rephrase things.

 

If someone is being held against their will (school), are they morally responsible for the things they do under this kind of coercion?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that if a kid doesn't want to be somewhere, and they are forced to be there, then they can not be held morally responsible for acting out against the aggression used against them. This would include all kids under the age of 18(compulsory educations laws)who "mis-behave" in school.

 

Let's extend this to prisoners. Can someone really commit an immoral act in prison? They are forced to be there. They are forced to deal with people they don't want to deal with. How can we blame them for assaulting someone under these circumstances?

[dsayers]

What is meant by acting out or misbehaving? Morality applies to behaviors that involve other people.

[jpahmad]

What is meant by acting out or misbehaving? Morality applies to behaviors that involve other people.

Yeah, let's say, a kindergarten kid lashes out at someone who is bothering him/her and punches them.Or, if you're in prison, you end up assaulting your cell mate because you can't stand them.What would be the moral verdict in those two situations? Considering that if both agents (school kids/prisoner) could leave the situation, they would.The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have to confront teachers everyday who treat children like they are little monsters. I'm trying to gather some "philosophical arsenal" so I can clearly explain my position.

[dsayers]

The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have to confront teachers everyday who treat children like they are little monsters. I'm trying to gather some "philosophical arsenal" so I can clearly explain my position.

 

I can certainly appreciate the potential this has. What exactly is your position BTW?

 

For a prisoner/student to assault another prisoner/student is immoral. Their captors might be coercing them into being there against their will, but they are not being coerced into assaulting a 3rd party.

 

A kindergarten kid would have to have been exposed to a great deal of coercion to even consider assault as a viable means to an end. For a teacher to view this child as a monster (which will color the ways she interacts with the child) will only serve to exacerbate the underlying problem. The truth of the matter is that the child's parents are monsters for abusing the child even if only by way of modeling violent behavior. Unfortunately, much of society attacks the child instead. Path of least resistance and all that 

[jpahmad]

I can certainly appreciate the potential this has. What exactly is your position BTW? For a prisoner/student to assault another prisoner/student is immoral. Their captors might be coercing them into being there against their will, but they are not being coerced into assaulting a 3rd party. A kindergarten kid would have to have been exposed to a great deal of coercion to even consider assault as a viable means to an end. For a teacher to view this child as a monster (which will color the ways she interacts with the child) will only serve to exacerbate the underlying problem. The truth of the matter is that the child's parents are monsters for abusing the child even if only by way of modeling violent behavior. Unfortunately, much of society attacks the child instead. Path of least resistance and all that 

My position on this is that it is destructive and irrational to hold a dysfunctional, abused, neglected 5 year old morally responsible for anything.If there is anything philosophically wrong with that assertion, or if it is invalid in anyway, let me know, because I don't want to look like an ass when I proclaim this to some of the people I see on a daily basis.If my statement is valid, then what I'm asking for is a very clean, cutting, philosophical way to communicate this to others who believe that children need to "face consequences for their actions" and then proceed to bring various punitive repercussions on them such as "time out", "no recess", "no gym class", "call parents", "in school suspension" etc..I mean, they really believe that these kids act this way because they are simply "bad kids."5 years old for Christ's sake!

[june]

My position on this is that it is destructive and irrational to hold a dysfunctional, abused, neglected 5 year old morally responsible for anything.5 years old for Christ's sake!

age isn't factor when it comes to property rights and the non-aggression principle. you can substitute "5" for "35" and it would make no difference within the context of these terms.so with that in mind you are basically saying "it is irrational to hold a dysfunctional adult morally responsible for anything!". which of course is nonsense, as just because an adult was abused as a child that does not give them the moral permission to then harm whoever and whatever they feel like. they are still morally accountable. 

[jpahmad]

age isn't factor when it comes to property rights and the non-aggression principle. you can substitute "5" for "35" and it would make no difference within the context of these terms. 

 That makes sense.  Non-aggression principle must be universal

 

 

so with that in mind you are basically saying "it is irrational to hold a dysfunctional adult morally responsible for anything!". which of course is nonsense, as just because an adult was abused as a child that does not give them the moral permission to then harm whoever and whatever they feel like. they are still morally accountable. 

 

No.  I'm referring to someone who has already had aggresion used against them, and is in a constant state of being aggressed against.  This person also has never been taught the non-aggression principle.  In fact, this person hasn't been taught anything yet, other then "don't do this, don't do that."  This person is five years old and in prison(school).  They can't leave.  They have no control over their environment (relative to an adult)

 

I don't see how you can compare the two situations, a reluctant child in school who has never been taught anything, and a 35 year old man who enjoys protection under the law as a autonomous "free-agent."

The only way I can get out of the appearent contradiciton that I have just set up for myself is if I equate a kid lashing out at school as self-defense against his/her captors.  Therefore, the 5-year old kid in school, pushing/punching someome else, is not violating the non-aggression principle.  It is self-defense.  Mis-directed self-defence.  But self-defense nonetheless.

 

I would say that the act of physical aggression is the child's attempt to change their environment.  Since, they can't freely leave school.

[june]

 That makes sense.  Non-aggression principle must be universal

 

No.  I'm referring to someone who has already had aggresion used against them, and is in a constant state of being aggressed against.  This person also has never been taught the non-aggression principle.  In fact, this person hasn't been taught anything yet, other then "don't do this, don't do that."  

these are more meaningless variables -- "never been taught"; "5 years old" -- that contradict your first statement that "non-aggression must be universal" -- the universalities of selfownership and thus being responsible for your actions do not account for the variables you mention.  

They can't leave.  They have no control over their environment (relative to an adult)

will these kids be shot or locked in jail if they leave? can you be more specific when you say "they can't leave"? 

Therefore, the 5-year old kid in school, pushing/punching someome else, is not violating the non-aggression principle.  It is self-defense.  Mis-directed self-defence.  But self-defense nonetheless.

of course it is violating the non-aggression principle. there is no such thing as "misdirected self-defense". just because person X punches person Y, that does not give person Y the moral freedom to aggress against person A, B & C.

[jpahmad]

 

will these kids be shot or locked in jail if they leave? can you be more specific when you say "they can't leave"? 

 

 

Yes, they will be locked in jail.  Or beaten.  Or locked in jail and beaten.  It is the nature of compulsory education.

these are more meaningless variables -- "never been taught"; "5 years old" -- that contradict your first statement that "non-aggression must be universal" -- the universalities of selfownership and thus being responsible for your actions do not account for the variables you mention.  

 

It's not a contradiction if I can prove it's self-defense. 

 

I'm not saying they don't own their actions.  That obviously wouldn't make sense.  I'm saying that they are not moraly culpable for their actions.

 

Let's set up a hypothetical situation to demonstrate how this could be considered self-defense:

 

If you come over to my house and kill my yappy little dog, that is a violaiton of the non agression principle.  You've destroyed my property.  However, if I lock you in my room with my yappy little dog for 10 days and you kill my dog because it is driving you crazy, then I would consider that an act of self-defense and morally valid.  Clearly your choice is to go crazy, or kill the dog.  Do you agree with me on that?

[june]

If you come over to my house and kill my yappy little dog, that is a violaiton of the non agression principle.  You've destroyed my property.  However, if I lock you in my room with my yappy little dog for 10 days and you kill my dog because it is driving you crazy, then I would consider that an act of self-defense and morally valid.  Clearly your choice is to go crazy, or kill the dog.  Do you agree with me on that?

the use of an animal is a poor choice because animals do not have property rights, and so the dog is your property, and since you are violating against me, i am within my rights to violate your property in self-defense. the dog is not a third party entity, as is the case in your real world example.it is more suited to replace "dog" with "another human prisoner" in your hypothetical. and in that case:you violated the non-aggression principle.the human prisoner did not violate the non-aggression principle.i am not morally permitted to harm the human prisoner.

[jpahmad]

the use of an animal is a poor choice because animals do not have property rights, and so the dog is your property, and since you are violating against me, i am within my rights to violate your property in self-defense. the dog is not a third party entity, as is the case in your real world example.it is more suited to replace "dog" with "another human prisoner" in your hypothetical. and in that case:you violated the non-aggression principle.the human prisoner did not violate the non-aggression principle.i am not morally permitted to harm the human prisoner.

There is something strange about condemning someone for violating the NAP when the person doing the accusing was the one who initially violated it in the first place.How about this example:A Nazi holding an imprisoned Jew morally culpable for assaulting another prisoner at Auschwitz.

[Infinite Limit]

There is something strange about condemning someone for violating the NAP when the person doing the accusing was the one who initially violated it in the first place.How about this example:A Nazi holding an imprisoned Jew morally culpable for assaulting another prisoner at Auschwitz.

Moral hypocrisy does not invalidate the principle. An assault against your captor or damage of his property to escape forced imprisonment is a form of self-defense because it is the only option the victim has to escape. Assaulting other prisoners is still a violation of NAP if they are not currently initiating violence against the victim in question. While we would doubtless have sympathy for the prisoner in a Nazi camp, especially if that prisoner is reduced to insanity, he is still initiating violence against someome who is not. Sympathy does not invalidate the NAP, and destruction of Nazi property or killing of Nazi guards who are enforcing the imprisonment is self-defense.

[jpahmad]

Moral hypocrisy does not invalidate the principle. An assault against your captor or damage of his property to escape forced imprisonment is a form of self-defense because it is the only option the victim has to escape. Assaulting other prisoners is still a violation of NAP if they are not currently initiating violence against the victim in question.While we would doubtless have sympathy for the prisoner in a Nazi camp, especially if that prisoner is reduced to insanity, he is still initiating violence against someome who is not. Sympathy does not invalidate the NAP, and destruction of Nazi property or killing of Nazi guards who are enforcing the imprisonment is self-defense.

I understand what your saying. It makes sense.I want to investigate further though. These individuals on the above scenarios are violating the NAP. However, is it rational to have sympathy for certain people who violate the NAP given that some of the circumstances that they are forced into are poisonous? Is it irrational not to have sympathy for them?I suppose that in a free world these people would be asked to make restitution or be ostracized. There is something that is bizarre though. If violating the NAP is immoral, and this person in our hypothetical situation violated the NAP, then we have the case where someone who has done something immoral could possibly receive sympathy form others.Well, there would be no prisons in a free world in the first place now that I think about itI do think it's irrational to force someone into a psychological "pressure cooker" and then expect them to behave rationallyI think for some children, being forced into school, is a "pressure cooker" scenario. They violate the NAP, they are immoral, yet I feel only sympathy for them. Some of them violate the NAP every day, yet, I do not feel that they are bad or evil. How is this possible?

[june]

There is something strange about condemning someone for violating the NAP when the person doing the accusing was the one who initially violated it in the first place.

you pinch me, and thus initiated a nap breach against me; in response, i slowly torture you to death. 

does it still feel strange to condemn me? 

How about this example:

A Nazi holding an imprisoned Jew morally culpable for assaulting another prisoner at Auschwitz.

if the prisoner initiated the assault against a non-nap breaching agent then they are morally responsible and should be dealt with accordingly. 

However, is it rational to have sympathy for certain people who violate the NAP given that some of the circumstances that they are forced into are poisonous? Is it irrational not to have sympathy for them?

 

you can feel sympathy for them, sure. but the non-aggression principle is the moral qualifier for which actions are based on, not emotions. 

Some of them violate the NAP every day, yet, I do not feel that they are bad or evil. How is this possible?

 

if a 3 year old child slaps someone in the face you do not have to feel that the child is evil, but you must acknowledge that the child has broken the nap and thus is morally open to due recourse. it's not about emotion, it's about action and what actions are morally permitted.

[jpahmad]

if a 3 year old child slaps someone in the face you do not have to feel that the child is evil, but you must acknowledge that the child has broken the nap and thus is morally open to due recourse. it's not about emotion, it's about action and what actions are morally permitted.

O.K.. let's get right to it. What's the "due recourse?"

[june]

O.K.. let's get right to it. What's the "due recourse?"

the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you.

[jpahmad]

That's funny. Thanks for the help

the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you.

That's Funny. Thanks for the help

[june]

That's Funny. Thanks for the help

um, that doesnt appear particularly sincere? i feel you are approaching these topics from an emotional stand-point -- if it was an adult who initiated the slap, then slapping them back would be a just recourse. it is just easier to digest emotionally when it is not a child, but chidren can break the nap like anybody else, and are therefore open to recourse.i apologise if your gratitude sincere, however. and you are very welcome!  

[Infinite Limit]

the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you.

Children (especially at the age of 3) are not fully aware of how to meet their own needs, do not have sufficiently developed brains, and cannot be said to have full freedom to make their own choices, legally or cognitively. Therefore, the child cannot be considered to be a moral actor, only that he will become one assuming he develops normally. Therefore, infants, toddlers, and very young children are not immoral for violating NAP because they have no capacity to make the choices to avoid initiatory violence.Furthermore, retalitory violence does not equal self-defense. Self-defense is justified as a last resort, when using violence to terminate initiatory violence is the only viable option to stop further physical damage or death, either in the moment or in the forseeable future. Otherwise, such an act is revenge, which is the reinitiation of violence. This is especially true with a child, who is near infinitely less powerful than an adult and is incapable of threatening death or substantial harm. A child at an elementary school age or older can act immorally, but violence against that child is only justified if substantial harm or death is possible. Also, sorry if I'm not clear enough. Responding from my phone

[june]

Children (especially at the age of 3) are not fully aware of how to meet their own needs, do not have sufficiently developed brains, and cannot be said to have full freedom to make their own choices, legally or cognitively. Therefore, the child cannot be considered to be a moral actor, only that he will become one assuming he develops normally. Therefore, infants, toddlers, and very young children are not immoral for violating NAP because they have no capacity to make the choices to avoid initiatory violence.

this is my reasoning: human beings have selfownership. you own your body, therefore you own your actions, therefore you are morally responsible for your actions. to argue that children are not moral agents (as you have done) is to argue that children do not have selfownership. to argue that children do not have selfownership is to morally permit the rape and murder of children.please explain any faults you find with this reasoning that is causing our disagreement

[jpahmad]

 

um, that doesnt appear particularly sincere? 

 

 

 

I was being sarcastic

What you are suggesting is beyond irrational to the point of beign absurd.  How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do? 

 

How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem?  Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior.  It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior.

 

I once had a baby headbutt me because he wanted to be put down (I was holding him close to my face).  Should I have headbutted him back?

Children (especially at the age of 3) are not fully aware of how to meet their own needs, do not have sufficiently developed brains, and cannot be said to have full freedom to make their own choices, legally or cognitively. Therefore, the child cannot be considered to be a moral actor, only that he will become one assuming he develops normally. Therefore, infants, toddlers, and very young children are not immoral for violating NAP because they have no capacity to make the choices to avoid initiatory violence. 

 

So please tell me.  How would you handle the following two situations: 

 

You teach Kindergaten.  A five year old shows up in the morning in a bad mood and proclaims that she hates this school and doesn't want to be here.  She says she wants to leave and you tell her that you are not legally permitted to let her leave the classroom.  You already know that she has a disfunctional family and has a history of abuse.  You ask her to sit down and she reluctantly does so for five minutes.  She suddenly becomes agitated again and thinks that the kid sitting next to her is making faces at her.  She stands up and knocks him out of his chair.  What is the appropriate recourse of action?

 

The second situation is identical, only make all agents in the senario highschool students.  Is the recourse the same?

[Infinite Limit]

this is my reasoning: human beings have selfownership. you own your body, therefore you own your actions, therefore you are morally responsible for your actions. to argue that children are not moral agents (as you have done) is to argue that children do not have selfownership. to argue that children do not have selfownership is to morally permit the rape and murder of children.please explain any faults you find with this reasoning that is causing our disagreement

No argument with being responsible for your actions if you have free will and/or the cognitive functions required for that. But I am not arguing that children don't have self-ownership (quite the opposite actually). Self-ownership is inherent and universal and precedes free will, which is not inherent and gained through an understanding of the past and oneself. Self-ownership is therefore necessary but not sufficient for free will. Both (or more specifically, self-ownership and the capacity for free will) are necessary for moral rules to be applicable to an individual because morality requires choice. Babies and toddlers don't possess the capacity for free will or self-control and so cannot be considered moral actors but still possess self-ownership, and being born is an example of an inevitably involuntary contract because implicit in two people deciding to have a baby is the promise that the parents will take good care of it. Rape and murder of babies is not justified because self-ownership precedes morality, not the other way around.Older children and teens are fundamentally different from babies because they have at least some capacity for free will and have responsibility for their actions as a result (assuming no coercion). The only argument I was making was that an eye for an eye (or a slap for a slap) is only justified if further harm will occur and no other viable options exist to stop the bad behavior, which is almost never the case considering the vast power differential. This does not mean the child did not act immorally.

[june]

How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do? 

 

How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem?  Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior.  It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior.

 

I once had a baby headbutt me because he wanted to be put down (I was holding him close to my face).  Should I have headbutted him back?

please dont put words in my mouth. i never said you should hit the violator, i said you are morally permitted to do so.if the situation can be handled without violence then that is always what i would recommend, but a victim of a nap breach is perfectly within their moral rights to retaliate with equal force. if you have a problem with this logic then rather than just labelling it as absurd, could you please explain what is absurd about it? i am all ears for that kind of progressive discussion

[jpahmad]

please dont put words in my mouth. i never said you should hit the violator, i said you are morally permitted to do so.

 

 

 I think your initial sentence was incoherent.  You said "the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you."  "Due recourse" means corrective course of action.  "morally permissible" is an adjective.  After beginning your sentence with "the due recourse is"  you then need a verb. 

 

So I really can't tell what you advocate to be the next step in the situation.

 

 if you have a problem with this logic then rather than just labelling it as absurd, could you please explain what is absurd about it? i am all ears for that kind of progressive discussion

 

I did explain why.  Look at quote below:

 

 

"How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do?"

 

"How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem?  Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior.  It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior."

 

 

 

Finally, could you please respond to my two hypothetical situations above?

[june]

So I really can't tell what you advocate to be the next step in the situation.

i acknowledge that that is not as clear as it could be. what i meant was that due to being the victim of a nap breach (a slap) retaliating with a slap of equal measure is one action that is morally just. no one has to act in that way, but if they did, it would be morally justified.  

"How can someone, who is not yet a fully formed human being (infant/baby) be morally condemned for anything they do?"

 

"How would hitting a child who is acting out solve anyone's problem?  Retaliation is neither self-defense or corrective behavior.  It certainly won't stop the undesirable behavior."

1) selfownership is binary. "fully formed", "quarterly formed", "half formed", these are meaningless distinctions. you either have selfownership (and thus ownership over your actions, and thus responsibility over your actions), or you don't.2) i never said it would solve anything. you asked me what would be just recourse in that scenario, and i answered -- equal force in return. 

What is the appropriate recourse of action?

the child who was violated should say what they feel is appropriate. that child can (among other options) forget about it, shake hands, or knock the violator out of their chair in return. all options are morally justified. and no, nothing changes if the agents are high school students. age is not a moral factor.

[cobra2411]

My first concern is that a child is being labeled rotten, no good, a monster, etc. IMO that must stop first. As for the morality questions, I believe a 5 year old or even a 3 year old has a basic grasp of things and knows hitting another person out of frustrating is wrong. I would say you have to take into account the child's upbringing and home life and explain things in an age appropriate level. 

 

"I understand you are angry and frustrated, but hitting someone else is not an appropriate way to handle your frustrations..."

 

Then you can find about their home life and teach them better ways to handle stress. 

[june]

Babies and toddlers don't possess the capacity for free will or self-control and so cannot be considered moral actors but still possess self-ownership[...]

can you please define, specifically, when and how a being gains free will. 

also, how does a baby possess selfownership when it does not have "self-control"? from my understanding: if a baby is not in control of it's actions, then it does not own it's actions; if a baby does not own it's action, then it does not own itself. what is you argument against this?

[dsayers]

I believe a 5 year old or even a 3 year old has a basic grasp of things and knows hitting another person out of frustrating is wrong

 

How do you know? Do you think it's not possible for a coercive home to break a child's innate empathy?

[jpahmad]

How do you know? Do you think it's not possible for a coercive home to break a child's innate empathy?

How do you know? Do you think it's not possible for a coercive home to break a child's innate empathy?

I absolutely agree with this. Dysfunctional kids can often just be broken. If they are not immediately removed from the poisonous environment, they will rot to the core. The next question would be: is there a point of no return?

i acknowledge that that is not as clear as it could be. what i meant was that due to being the victim of a nap breach (a slap) retaliating with a slap of equal measure is one action that is morally just. no one has to act in that way, but if they did, it would be morally justified.   b]

I'm still confused here. Are you saying that after witnessing the act of aggression, the teacher should or could slap the kid back? I'm asking you what the teacher should do, not what the kid who got knocked out of the chair should do.

1) selfownership is binary. "fully formed", "quarterly formed", "half formed", these are meaningless distinctions. you either have selfownership (and thus ownership over your actions, and thus responsibility over your actions), or you don't.b]

I didn't say anything about self-ownership. I'm talking about moral condemnation.Furthermore, I said "due recourse" not "just recourse." Very different. I want to know what corrective course of action should be taken by the teacher. Please answer this question.

[Infinite Limit]

So please tell me. How would you handle the following two situations: You teach Kindergaten. A five year old shows up in the morning in a bad mood and proclaims that she hates this school and doesn't want to be here. She says she wants to leave and you tell her that you are not legally permitted to let her leave the classroom. You already know that she has a disfunctional family and has a history of abuse. You ask her to sit down and she reluctantly does so for five minutes. She suddenly becomes agitated again and thinks that the kid sitting next to her is making faces at her. She stands up and knocks him out of his chair. What is the appropriate recourse of action?The second situation is identical, only make all agents in the senario highschool students. Is the recourse the same?

This would seem like a lifeboat scenario, but considering how often this likely occurs, I doubt my feeling on this is valid. Still, it makes far more sense to look at the source of coercion and understand prevention rather than a cure. Compulsory education violates the NAP as does violent parenting. Anyway, important to understand is that in the troubled child's life, at least two sources of coercion exist. The first is her dysfunctional and abusive family, and the second is the government indoctrination center we all know and despise. In both cases the child acting out is a result of horrible parents and a lack of any source of empathy. Although both are responsible for their actions (as they have some capacity for free will, the high school student more so than the kindergartener), it scarcely makes sense to use violence to stop a behavior caused by repeated violence unless the child is immediately threatening further harm and no other option exists to prevent the child. I would probably start by making sure the student who was hit was okay first, but I am not totally sure, nor is it the point I'm trying to make. It would be immoral to hit the child or high school student back if she is no longer threatening or pursuing violence because that still constitutes an initiation of force.And sorry for the late replies. Work is keeping me busy. I will try to address all comments directed my way when I can