The Student Room Group

Child soldiers, are they responsible?

What do you think?

I would say no as they, really speaking, have no choice but to participate otherwise they will be killed and they have no way out of it.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for nhtw
nhtw
10
Original post by moment of truth
What do you think?

I would say no as they, really speaking, have no choice but to participate otherwise they will be killed and they have no way out of it.


This goes deep into the discussion of free will and choice. To play devils advocate I'll ask you this question. You don't own a bike but you need one. So you steal somebody else's bike, is this right?
(edited 8 years ago)
Yes they are.


When you hear some story about a guy who is in his early 20's who was a child soldier from the age of 12 and you're supposed to feel sympathy for him and ignore the fact he's been raping and killing for years it's such *******s, try to escape, shoot the warlord, do something. They are every bit as complicit in what they do as soldiers who commit atrocities in the same way as Cambodian soldiers working for the Khmer Rouge or Sri Lankans killing Tamils.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 3
Avatar for Shirogirl
Shirogirl
Responsible in terms of what?

If it's for carrying out the individual murder, yes they are. They are aware of what they're doing. But it is not fair to punish them: rather they need help. And there comes a certain age where it's inexcusable to commit such crimes and have the same status as a completely uninvolved child.

If it's for the war they're involved in - no, it's their senior's responsibility. These do deserve to be punished.
Original post by nhtw
This goes deep into the discussion of free will and choice. To play devils advocate I'll ask you this question. You don't own a bike but you need one. So you steal somebody else's bike, is this right?


What do you need the bike for? :curious:
Reply 5
Avatar for nhtw
nhtw
10
Original post by moment of truth
What do you need the bike for? :curious:


Ok, this is your scenario. You and a stranger are both running from a bear (life in danger). He has a bike but you are closer to said bike than he is and have the ability to steal it and save yourself but he will die.
Original post by nhtw
Ok, this is your scenario. You and a stranger are both running from a bear (life in danger). He has a bike but you are closer to said bike than he is and have the ability to steal it and save yourself but he will die.


In a life and death situation, I probably would, to be honest.
Reply 7
Avatar for nhtw
nhtw
10
Original post by moment of truth
In a life and death situation, I probably would, to be honest.


yes, so would I haha but would you say this is morally ok?
think the leaders are more liable and the arms dealers.
It really depends on the context. Generally if a child was born into war and forced to pick up a weapon and start killing, becoming desensitized to killing and what is good and bad it is technically not their fault.
Original post by moment of truth
What do you think?

I would say no as they, really speaking, have no choice but to participate otherwise they will be killed and they have no way out of it.


The problem is that one could argue that any participant in war has no choice. Do Syrian rebels really have any other option but to fight?
I don't think they are, I doubt any child would rather fight in a war which involves killing people/risks them getting killed rather than playing and going to school. Children are forced into this situation.
Original post by nhtw
yes, so would I haha but would you say this is morally ok?


I would say it's fairly moral to save yourself in a situation like that, to be honest.
Original post by yulebook
The problem is that one could argue that any participant in war has no choice. Do Syrian rebels really have any other option but to fight?


It's a good point and i'm not sure, to be honest. If we go down that route, where is the limit though? Anyone could say that they are forced to do something and does that mean they aren't responsible at all?
Original post by Indeterminate
I agree.

Forcing children into conflict is just barbaric and completely wrong.


And forcing adults into conflict isn't?
Original post by moment of truth
It's a good point and i'm not sure, to be honest. If we go down that route, where is the limit though? Anyone could say that they are forced to do something and does that mean they aren't responsible at all?


Isn't that why we have wars in the first place? Do you really think the European Union wants a war in Eastern Europe? Or that Northern Ireland wanted to fall into civil war?
No. Plus they get forcibly hooked on drugs in a lot of cases and get mentally/physically/sexually abused so it isn't their fault at all.
I recommend everyone to watch Beasts of no nation if they haven't already.
Is this even a question? Obviously they aren't responsible.
Original post by jedanselemyia
No. Plus they get forcibly hooked on drugs in a lot of cases and get mentally/physically/sexually abused so it isn't their fault at all.


That could happen to anyone though. Ever looked at how chav or black culture works? I know Chavs are quite tame in the UK but over in the Americas, crime sometimes looks like a civil war!. And importantly many of them a quite young.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you