The urge to protect and prioritize children is partly biological/evolutionary—they have to be “cute” otherwise who’d put up with all the screaming and poop long enough to raise them to adulthood? The urge to protect and nurture them is a survival-of-the-species thing. Baby animals are cute because they resemble human babies—disproportionately big heads, big eyes, mewling noises, helplessness.
But from a moral perspective I’d argue that there is a greater moral duty to protect and care for children because they can neither fend nor advocate for themselves effectively. They’re largely at the mercy of their carers and society in general. An adult may bear some degree of responsibility for his poverty, for example, if he has made bad choices or squandered resources. His infant bears none of the responsibility for the poverty but suffers from it nonetheless and can do nothing to alleviate it. This is unjust.
There’s also the self-interest motive. The children we raise and nurture now will be the adults running the world when we are more or less helpless and dependent ourselves in old age.
And there’s the future-of-humanity as it extends past your own lifetime too, if you value that.
But of course these are all points about moral duty rather than moral value. I’m fuzzier on what moral value means in this context. For example the difference in moral value between the young person who is doing good right now and the old person who has done lots of good over their life, but isn’t doing any right now because that life is nearly over and they can’t. Does ability vs. desire to do good factor into this? The child can’t do much and the end-of-life old person can’t do much, though they may both have a strong desire to do good. Only the adult in between can match the ability to the will.
I’d argue that there is a greater moral duty to protect and care for children because they can neither fend nor advocate for themselves effectively.
I would advocate a “do no harm”, attitude. Rather than a “provide added benefit” just because they are children. I wouldn’t advocate to neglect children, but I wouldn’t put them ahead of adults.
As for what we should do. I don’t have answers to these questions, I suspect it comes down to how each person weighs the factors in their own heads, and consequently how they want the world to be balanced.
Just like some people care about animal suffering and others do not. (I like kids, definitely, but moral value is currently subjectively determined)
The urge to protect and prioritize children is partly biological/evolutionary—they have to be “cute” otherwise who’d put up with all the screaming and poop long enough to raise them to adulthood? The urge to protect and nurture them is a survival-of-the-species thing. Baby animals are cute because they resemble human babies—disproportionately big heads, big eyes, mewling noises, helplessness.
But from a moral perspective I’d argue that there is a greater moral duty to protect and care for children because they can neither fend nor advocate for themselves effectively. They’re largely at the mercy of their carers and society in general. An adult may bear some degree of responsibility for his poverty, for example, if he has made bad choices or squandered resources. His infant bears none of the responsibility for the poverty but suffers from it nonetheless and can do nothing to alleviate it. This is unjust.
There’s also the self-interest motive. The children we raise and nurture now will be the adults running the world when we are more or less helpless and dependent ourselves in old age.
And there’s the future-of-humanity as it extends past your own lifetime too, if you value that.
But of course these are all points about moral duty rather than moral value. I’m fuzzier on what moral value means in this context. For example the difference in moral value between the young person who is doing good right now and the old person who has done lots of good over their life, but isn’t doing any right now because that life is nearly over and they can’t. Does ability vs. desire to do good factor into this? The child can’t do much and the end-of-life old person can’t do much, though they may both have a strong desire to do good. Only the adult in between can match the ability to the will.
Yes. I agree with most of what you have said.
I would advocate a “do no harm”, attitude. Rather than a “provide added benefit” just because they are children. I wouldn’t advocate to neglect children, but I wouldn’t put them ahead of adults.
As for what we should do. I don’t have answers to these questions, I suspect it comes down to how each person weighs the factors in their own heads, and consequently how they want the world to be balanced.
Just like some people care about animal suffering and others do not. (I like kids, definitely, but moral value is currently subjectively determined)