Social Sciences Questions and Answers

Start Your Free Trial

do you think it is morally wrong for young people to fight in armed conflict do you think it is morally wrong for young people to fight in armed conflict

Expert Answers info

besure77 eNotes educator | Certified Educator

calendarEducator since 2010

write1,493 answers

starTop subjects are Science, Social Sciences, and History

I do not think that it is moral for a child to become involved in war. I do not think that children (and most adults for that matter) are prepared for the horrible things that occur during times of war. I do realize that some countries begin preparing children at a young age for war but I still do not think it is right.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial

drmonica eNotes educator | Certified Educator

calendarEducator since 2009

write700 answers

starTop subjects are Literature, Social Sciences, and History

Child soldiers are completely immoral. If you are talking about young adults fighting in armed conflict, the answer is "it depends." I have a serious problem with a government filled with draft dodgers, like we had with GW Bush, sending soldiers of any age into armed conflict without clear provocation by an enemy. I consider GW Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, to be war criminals for what they have done in Iraq. They have blood on their hands that can never be washed away.

As far as a military draft, I think that if we are going to fight any war, a draft is the best way to staff our armies, as long as everyone of draftable age is subject to it and cannot use influence to get out of danger, like GW Bush did with the National Guard during Vietnam.

I also am not opposed to requiring a few years' military service of all young people, similar to what Israel does. I believe that that would go a long way toward building responsible, informed citizens.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial

islandmarsh eNotes educator | Certified Educator

calendarEducator since 2010

write12 answers

starTop subjects are Social Sciences, History, and Law and Politics

As somebody who watched a 17 year old class mate hauled out of math class by the recruiters because he was failing in school and then 6 weeks later wound up in Viet Nam, I am in the category of 18 years old is too young to fight in a war in ground combat.

The third soldier to die in Iraq was a former student of mine.  I still grieve even though as a junior high student, he was a royal pain.

Having said that, my father, like many others, enlisted at a young age to defeat Japan and ultimately end WWII.  The war claimed my father in law, leaving my husband fatherless forever and altering his life in ways too numerable to speculate on.  But I am so grateful that they defeated Hitler and Japan.

I think what it boils down to is is the war worth fighting?  If it is,then I think we should all get our collective rear ends into the war in what ever way we can. When the Iranians were holding our people hostage, I was ready to enlist myself.  After 9/11, had we immediately gone after the attackers instead Iraq, I think more of us would have enlisted, regardless of age.

But, how can we answer this question?  The more I think about it, the crazier it makes me.  Because how do you determine if a war is just if a...

(The entire section contains 5 answers and 948 words.)

Unlock This Answer Now

check Approved by eNotes Editorial

Ashley Kannan eNotes educator | Certified Educator

calendarEducator since 2009

write16,848 answers

starTop subjects are Literature, History, and Social Sciences

check Approved by eNotes Editorial

pohnpei397 eNotes educator | Certified Educator

calendarEducator since 2009

write35,413 answers

starTop subjects are History, Literature, and Social Sciences

check Approved by eNotes Editorial

bulmabriefs144 | Student

The fact of the matter is, we take our fittest, our strongest (and apparently our stupidest) to go to war. These people are picked at an age where they should be making babies, and instead we pull these people away from their loved ones by notions of "patriotism", blow their arms and legs off (or kill them) and then give no options for them afterwards, because of tight job market.

We should be recruiting people 25-60, as a career, not trying to work on teenagers that equate war to video game, and haven't the sense to know that they could build a career. We should pay them better, so it's a matter of no finding jobs, girlfriends, or other options. These would be people who would likely fight hard, because they realized they weren't drafted, and weren't tricked. Because they wanted to fight, or it was their best option.

joylumb | Student

This is a very tricky question.  The moral issue is blurred. The answer might be very different if you were discussing a child who was being oppressed and abused as part of, say Apartheid.  Does that child then have the right to take up arms and protect itself and its family? If we prevented this, we could be justifiably accused of violating the child's rights.   What if the child lived in a war torn society where the choice is starvation or a regular job?  Every fibre of my western cultural upbringing says it is wrong for children to fight, but in truth, war is a fact of life, and protecting children from this is not always possible or acceptable.  Until we can eliminate war, I think that children will fight in some form or other.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial
mudiver | Student

The problem is, not at what age do we send our youth off to war, the problem is we should not fight a war for greater gain or economy. We have two wars going on now, one that is justified, used to cover the one that is totally unjustified.

We can easily end all wars that are not necessary. This can be done by drafting all 18-year-old females as well as the males.

The death toll of the high value female will bring us to a higher level of conscience in such matters. This is the check and balance that is needed.

How can anyone justify an appropriate age to kill, to savage and to be savaged and to killed our fellow human beings,  that is insanity total insanity.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial
krishna-agrawala | Student

Armed conflicts as well as making very young people work in paid employment are undesirable. To that extent the combination of armed conflict and employment of young people is even more undesirable under normal situations. However if some one says that armed conflict, or employment of young people, in isolation is fine, but only the combination of the two is bad, then I will beg to differ.

I believe, armed conflict is justified when people are forced to fight for their survival and for other worthwhile causes. Such conflicts often require great sacrifices. So when the choice is between survival of the young and their participation in an armed conflict, fighting in the armed conflict is a better moral choice.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial
kostaglatov | Student

i just reread my post and realized a rather embarassing error which i cannot edit. so I will correct it now. I wrote mute instead of moot. If the error were not mine , I would laugh out loud.


check Approved by eNotes Editorial
kostaglatov | Student

As is the case with most questions requiring philosophical analysis, the answer that comes to mind iimmediately is, it depends.  You are not sufficiently specific in your question. If as pohnpei points out ,if  childen are forced to fight, then the question becomes mute . The question would then become, "is it morally wrong to complell children to fight". I suggest there is little debate on that score.  Since I cannot think of anywhere in the world where children are in the position of freely making an informed decision to enter an armed conflict, your question again becomes somewhat of a non issue.  One may find an excepiton for instance in the case of Northern Ireland perhaps 30 years ago, where children have been raised to understand the injustice of occupation, and who then took it upon themselves to take part in small scale "raids". The same might be said for children within the occupied territory of palestine.  But even these exceptional cases do not seem to fit into the category of armed conflict  which we generally except as conflict between two or more established and recognized nantional entities. One last point, The term children is so vague as to make your question nearly impossible to answer in anyway that is meaningful.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial
lit24 | Student

Armed conflict whether by young or mature adults is indeed morally wrong. All the religions of the world preach love and not war, but ironically religious groups because of their bigotry are responsible for so  many armed conflicts in different parts of the world.

There is so much of distrust, hatred and bitterness amongst the various nations today, one fears for the future of the human race itself. Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear arms spell the future doom of humanity.

One of the most pitiable and shocking incidents in today's world  is the sight of  selfish and corrupt politicians exploiting small children by arming them and letting them loose in the battlefield.

Young people when they ought to be in school and college are today out in the streets fully armed and fighting fierce gun battles.

One wonders whether the end of the world is at hand.

check Approved by eNotes Editorial