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

[jpahmad]

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

Thanks for your reply Infinite Limit. I don't think we can consider this a "lifeboat scenario" because it happens everyday, all day, everywhere in the world.That being said, I think the only moral recourse of action for the teacher is to first see if the kid is ok, then simply ask the child who aggressed against the other kid if they would like to go somewhere else instead of being here in the classroom. They will probably say they want to leave, or something. Usually you can compromise with them by asking them if there is anything in particular they would like to do inside the classroom. They might say, "I want to play on the computer", or, "I want to play with the blocks." At the point, you are morally obligated to let them do it or let them leave.You are morally obligated not to force them to do anything. If they want to sit by a friend and talk, let them. If they want to dance, let them. If they want to leave, you should let them leave. This obviously becomes a catch-22 because if you can't convince them to stay, and you let them leave (you would be violating the NAP if you don't let them leave the room), then you can be liable if something happens to them. This moral catch-22 is one of the main reasons why I'm leaving public education for good.The kids are in prison and they don't even realize it. The absurd thing is that these idiot teachers scream and yell at the kids for not liking the fact that they are in prison.In a free society, as soon as a child becomes old enough to understand the non-aggression principle, they then become moral actors in the world. This is because in a free society, there is no slavery.Slavery is the state of being coerced into doing something. Someone who understands the NAP but has a gun pointing at their head is not a moral agent while in that state.I would further argue that a slave can not be a moral agent either. Since prisoners are slaves, they are not moral agents. And finally, school children are not moral agents because they are effectively prisoners. Therefore, that girl in my above scenario is not violating the NAP when she acts out for being in a prison. This goes for high school kids as well

[dsayers]

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?

 

Sadly, yes. Things like empathy and language skills have windows of opportunity. If empathy is not developed by a certain point, it cannot be. I don't know if this is to say that somebody that lacks empathy can choose to make moral decisions despite the destroyed ability to empathize. If they could, it wouldn't at all be the same as somebody that experiences it naturally.

[june]

I want to know what corrective course of action should be taken by the teacher. Please answer this question.

I have said about 3 times that no one "should" use violence on anyone, just that it is morally permissible if they did. as for your question, i have answered it already: the person who was violated should get first say on what the corrective action is. i don't see why your first thought is to hand jurisdiction over to this teacher as if they have some divine right to decide. this is between the two involved parties and no one else, first and foremost.EDIT:

And finally, school children are not moral agents because they are effectively prisoners. Therefore, that girl in my above scenario is not violating the NAP when she acts out for being in a prison.

wait, WHAT?!  if you deem this girl as not a moral agent then she has done nothing wrong and the "victim" is not a victim at all and thus has no moral recourse. your entire line of questioning is fruitless if you do not consider this girl a moral agent 

[jpahmad]

I have said about 3 times that no one "should" use violence on anyone, just that it is morally permissible if they did. 

 

Why does this seem like a contradiciton to me?  If it is morally permissible, then why shouldn't they use it?

 

 

 

as for your question, i have answered it already: the person who was violated should get first say on what the corrective action is. i don't see why your first thought is to hand jurisdiction over to this teacher as if they have some divine right to decide. this is between the two involved parties and no one else, first and foremost. 

 

Come on June, tell what you would do if you were the third party observer to what ws going on in my scenerio.  When you answer my question, start your sentence with "If I were the teacher in the room, I would...." 

 

I'll assume that you're going to say "if I were the teacher in the room, I would let the victim decide what was appropriate"

 

In that case, what if the victim decides to kill the girl with a sharp number two pencil?  Would you let this happen?  After all, the victim can decide right?

 

 

EDIT:

wait, WHAT?!  if you deem this girl as not a moral agent then she has done nothing wrong and the "victim" is not a victim at all and thus has no moral recourse. your entire line of questioning is fruitless if you do not consider this girl a moral agent 

 

No, not exactly.  The girl is not a moral agent the same way a tiger is not a moral agent when it attacks a perceived threat.  The victim of the tiger does have recourse though; get the hell away from the tiger!

[cobra2411]

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

You're right, I should have say that they "should" be able to understand that hitting is wrong. You need to find out why they're not acting on something that IMO should be innate to them. That would likely lead to a dysfunctional home / upbringing and once identified they can be worked with. To simply call them monsters places the blame on the child, not the adult that ruined the child. 

[june]

Why does this seem like a contradiciton to me?  If it is morally permissible, then why shouldn't they use it?

it is morally permissible for a person to shave their legs. that does not mean they should shave their legs.it is morally permissible for a person to drink coffee. that does not mean they should drink coffee.it is morally permissible for a person who was violated with force to retaliate with equal force. that does not mean they should retaliate with equal force.there is no contradiction. 

In that case, what if the victim decides to kill the girl with a sharp number two pencil?  Would you let this happen?  After all, the victim can decide right?

 

the victim decides first and foremost, absolutely. and if the victim's decision is unable to be enacted (maybe they do not have sufficient means to do so) then it is perfectly valid for the victim to hire or receive voluntary help from a third party to fulfil their decision (the teacher, in this case).as for your "would you let this happen" question, if i had the consent of the to-be victim, then i would be morally permitted to intervene, and with force if necessary. if i did not have the consent, then i would not be morally permitted to intervene 

No, not exactly.  The girl is not a moral agent the same way a tiger is not a moral agent when it attacks a perceived threat.  The victim of the tiger does have recourse though; get the hell away from the tiger!

a tiger is never a moral agent. it is an animal. people morally kill and eat animals. is the girl not a moral agent in that same sense too? 

[jpahmad]

 

it is morally permissible for a person to shave their legs. that does not mean they should shave their legs.it is morally permissible for a person to drink coffee. that does not mean they should drink coffee.it is morally permissible for a person who was violated with force to retaliate with equal force. that does not mean they should retaliate with equal force.there is no contradiction. 

 

 

Morality concerns ethics, i.e., what one should or shouldn't do given a particular ethical situation.  Drinking coffe and shaving legs are not ethical situations. 

 

As far as your third example: 

 

"it is morally permissible for a person who was violated with force to retaliate with equal force. that does not mean they should retaliate with equal force."

 

Retaliation is not self defense, therefore it is a violaiton of the NAP.  Violating the NAP is not morally permissible.