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

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

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...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Start your 48-Hour Free Trial

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.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

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.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

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 President is lying to you about what our cause is?  Ok - I give up.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Like the previous post, I think that the clarification of the question is going to be critical.  I think that "young people" is probably referring to someone under the age of 18.  I think that there is a level of moral repugnance in employing children to fight in adult causes.  No doubt these causes are questionable by different standards. Regardless, to make children as soldiers in these causes, preventing them from the chance to live a life on their own terms is something that I would consider morally wrong.  This being said, I am not sure what to say to a child to enlists in a cause out of vengeance.  There are children who are forced to see egregious violations committed to loved ones such as parents, siblings, family members.  They might choose to join the fight to avenge the death of these loved ones.  I am not in favor of this, but I think that it is something to bring into this equation.  I can still believe it is morally wrong for children to be involved in such causes, but I also understand that there is a profound level of hurt and anger involved in any child who witnesses wonton acts of cruelty to one's family and loved ones.  In terms of those who are 18 and over, I am not in favor of them fighting as well, but if there is a legally acceptable standard that "of age" is 18, I think that moral opposition might have to be weighed against this legal acceptance.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I assume you are talking about young people like people who are 12, not people who are 18.

I am torn on this question because I am not sure why it is any more cruel to make kids of that age fight than it is to make people of any age fight in wars.  When I say "make" I mean force people to fight who would otherwise not have even been in the military.

My first reaction is that it is wrong because kids do not really understand what they are getting in to and have no choice in the matter.  But I wonder if that is any different than the experience of a 21 year old who gets drafted.  People I know who have been in combat say that there is nothing that prepares you for it.  So I do not see how the draftee has any more understanding of what they are in for or any more choice than the child soldier does.

So, in a sense, I think I'd say it's generally wrong to force anyone to enter the armed forces and fight.  This is true regardless of their age.  (But I'm not sure about that because the draft in WWII doesn't seem all that wrong...)

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team