When is a child morally responsible for his or her own actions?

[Crystal Shards]

For many parents, nothing is more important than teaching kids to know right from wrong. But when does a sense of morality begin?

RAISING A MORAL CHILD

By Karen Springen

NANCY ROTERING BEAMS AS she recalls how her 3-year-old son Jack recently whacked his head against a drawer hard enough to draw blood. It’s not that she found the injury amusing. But it did have a silver lining: Jack’s wails prompted his 2-year-old brother, Andy, to offer him spontaneous consolation in the form of a cup of water and a favorite book, “Jamberry.” “Want ‘Berry’ book, Jack?” he asked. Nancy loved Andy’s “quick-thinking act of sympathy.” “I was thrilled that such a tiny person could come up with such a big thought,” she says. “He stepped up and offered Jack refreshment—and entertainment—to take his mind off the pain.”

All parents have goals for their children, whether they center on graduating from high school or winning the Nobel Prize. But for a great many, nothing is more important than raising a “good” child—one who knows right from wrong, who is empathetic and who, like Andy, tries to live by the Golden Rule, even if he doesn’t know yet what it is. Still, morality is an elusive—and highly subjective—character trait. Most parents know it when they see it. But how can they instill and nurture it in their children? Parents must lead by example. “The way to raise a moral child is to be a moral person,” says Tufts University psychologist David Elkind. “If you’re honest and straightforward and decent and caring, that’s what children learn.” Humans seem innately inclined to behave empathetically; doctors talk about “contagious crying” among newborns in the hospital nursery. And not all children of murderers or even tax cheats follow in their parents’ footsteps. “What’s surprising is how many kids raised in immoral homes grow up moral,” says New York psychiatrist Alvin Rosenfeld.

Parents have always been preoccupied with instilling moral values in their children. But in today’s fast-paced world, where reliable role models are few and acts of violence by children are increasingly common, the quest to raise a moral child has taken on new urgency. Child criminals grow ever younger; in August, a 6-year-old California girl (with help from a 5-year-old friend) smothered her 3-year-old brother with a pillow. Such horrific crimes awaken a dark, unspoken fear in many parents: Is my child capable of committing such an act? And can I do anything to make sure that she won’t?

There are no guarantees. But parents are increasingly aware that even very young children can grasp and exhibit moral behaviors—even if the age at which they become “morally accountable” remains under debate. According to the Roman Catholic Church, a child reaches “the age of reason” by 7. Legally, each state determines how old a child must be to be held responsible for his acts, ranging from 7 to 15. Child experts are reluctant to offer a definitive age for accountability. But they agree that in order to be held morally responsible, children must have both an emotional and a cognitive awareness of right and wrong—in other words, to know in their heads as well as feel in their hearts that what they did was wrong. Such morality doesn’t appear overnight but emerges slowly, over time. And according to the latest research, the roots of morality first appear in the earliest months of an infant’s life. “It begins the day they’re born, and it’s not complete until the day they die,” says child psychiatrist Elizabeth Berger, author of “Raising Children with Character.”

It’s never too early to start. Parents who respond instantly to a newborn’s cries lay an important moral groundwork. “You work to understand what the baby’s feeling,” says Barbara Howard, a specialist in developmental behavioral pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “Then the baby will work to understand what other people are feeling.” Indeed, empathy is among the first moral emotions to develop. Even before the age of 2, children will try to comfort an upset child—though usually in an “egocentric” way, says Marvin Berkowitz, professor of character education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis: “I might give them my teddy even though your teddy is right there.” To wit: Andy Rotering brought his brother his own favorite book.

Morality consists of not only caring for others but also following basic rules of conduct. Hurting another child, for instance, is never OK. But how you handle it depends on your child’s age. If a 1-year-old is hitting or biting, “you simply say ‘no’ firmly, and you remove the child from the situation,” says Craig Ramey, author of “Right From Birth.” But once a child acquires language skills, parents can provide more detail. “You can say, ‘We don’t hit in this family’,” says David Fassler, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association’s council on children, adolescents and their families. “You can say, ‘Everyone feels like hitting and biting from time to time. My job is to help you figure out what to do with those kinds of feelings’.” Suggest alternatives—punching a pillow, drawing a sad picture or lying quietly on a bed.

Children grow more moral with time. As Lawrence Kohlberg of Harvard University has said, kids go through progressive stages of moral development. Between 1 and 2, children understand that there are rules—but usually follow them only if an adult is watching, says Barbara Howard. After 2, they start obeying rules—inconsistently—even if an adult isn’t there. And as any adult who has ever driven faster than 65mph knows, people continue “circumstantial” morality throughout life, says Howard. “People aren’t perfect, even when they know what the right thing to do is.”

Though all children are born with the capacity to act morally, that ability can be lost. Children who are abused or neglected often fail to acquire a basic sense of trust and belonging that influences how people behave when they’re older. “They may be callous because no one has ever shown them enough of the caring to put that into their system,” says Howard. Ramey argues that “we come to expect the world to be the way we’ve experienced it”—whether that means cold and forbidding or warm and loving. According to Stanford developmental psychologist William Damon, morality can also be hampered by the practice of “bounding”—limiting children’s contact with the world only to people who are like them—as opposed to “bridging,” or exposing them to people of different backgrounds. “You can empathize with everyone who looks just like you and learn to exclude everyone who doesn’t,” says Damon. A juvenile delinquent may treat his sister gently—but beat up an old woman of another race. “The bridging approach ends up with a more moral child,” says Damon.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t force your child to be moral. But there are things you can do to send him in the right direction:

• Decide what values—such as honesty and hard work—are most important to you. Then do what you want your children to do. “If you volunteer in your community, and you take your child, they will do that themselves,” says Joseph Hagan, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on the psychosocial aspects of child and family health. “If you stub your toe, and all you can say is the F word, guess what your child is going to say when they stub their toe?”

• Praise children liberally. “You have to ignore the behaviors you don’t want and highlight the behaviors you do want,” says Kori Skidmore, a staff psychologist at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Rather than criticizing a toddler for his messy room, compliment him on the neat corner, recommends Darien, Ill., pediatrician Garry Gardner. Use “no” judiciously, otherwise “a child starts to feel like ‘I’m always doing something wrong’,” says the APA’s Fassler. “If you’re trying to teach a child to share, then praise them when they share. Don’t just scold them when they’re reluctant to.”

• Take advantage of teachable moments. When Gardner’s kids were 3 and 4, they found a $10 bill in front of a store. Gardner talked to them about the value of the money—and they agreed to give it to the shopkeeper in case someone returned for it. They mutually decided “finders keepers” shouldn’t apply to anything worth more than a quarter. “Certainly you wouldn’t go back and say, ‘I found a penny’,” says Gardner. Parents can also use famous parables, like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” or Bible stories to illustrate their point.

• Watch what your child watches. TV and computer games can glorify immoral behavior. “If children are unsupervised, watching violence or promiscuity on TV, they’re going to have misguided views about how to treat other people,” says Karen Bohlin, director of Boston University’s Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character. “Children by nature are impulsive and desperately need guidance to form good habits. That can come only from a loving caregiver who’s by their side, teaching them how to play nicely, safely, fairly, how to take turns, how to put things back where they belong, how to speak respectfully.”

• Discuss consequences. Say, “ ‘Look how sad Mary is because you broke her favorite doll’,” explains Berkowitz. Parents can also ask their children to help them pick fair punishments—for example, no TV. “They’re learning that their voice is valued,” says Berkowitz. Allowing kids to make choices—even about something as trivial as what to have for lunch—will enable them to make moral ones later. “If they don’t learn peanut butter and jelly at 2, how are they going to decide about drinking when they’re 14?” asks family physician Nancy Dickey, editor in chief of Medem, an online patient-information center.

• Always help them see things from the other person’s point of view. If a child bops his new sibling, try to reflect the newborn’s outlook. Say, “ ‘Oh, my, that must hurt. How would you feel if someone did that to you?’ ” says Howard. Gardner encourages parents whose kids find stray teddy bears to ask their children how sad they would feel if they lost their favorite stuffed animal—and how happy they would be if someone returned it. “It’s one thing to hear about it at Sunday school,” he says. And another to live the “do unto others” rule in real life.

In the end, the truest test of whether a parent has raised a moral child is how that young person acts when Mom or Dad is not around. With a lot of love and luck, your child will grow up to feel happy and blessed—and to want to help others who aren’t as fortunate. Now, that’s something to be proud of.

From Newsweek Special Issue, Fall/Winter 2000, pp. 70-73. © 2000 by Newsweek, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.

The "spoiler" up there is the entire article, if anyone's interested in reading it. The article is on how to raise a moral child, but this is what intrigued me:

Parents have always been preoccupied with instilling moral values in their children. But in today’s fast-paced world, where reliable role models are few and acts of violence by children are increasingly common, the quest to raise a moral child has taken on new urgency. Child criminals grow ever younger; in August, a 6-year-old California girl (with help from a 5-year-old friend) smothered her 3-year-old brother with a pillow. Such horrific crimes awaken a dark, unspoken fear in many parents: Is my child capable of committing such an act? And can I do anything to make sure that she won’t?

There are no guarantees. But parents are increasingly aware that even very young children can grasp and exhibit moral behaviors—even if the age at which they become “morally accountable” remains under debate. According to the Roman Catholic Church, a child reaches “the age of reason” by 7. Legally, each state determines how old a child must be to be held responsible for his acts, ranging from 7 to 15. Child experts are reluctant to offer a definitive age for accountability. But they agree that in order to be held morally responsible, children must have both an emotional and a cognitive awareness of right and wrong—in other words, to know in their heads as well as feel in their hearts that what they did was wrong. Such morality doesn’t appear overnight but emerges slowly, over time. And according to the latest research, the roots of morality first appear in the earliest months of an infant’s life. “It begins the day they’re born, and it’s not complete until the day they die,” says child psychiatrist Elizabeth Berger, author of “Raising Children with Character.”

So when do you think that children should be held legally responsible for their actions? Do you agree with the Church, that it's 7, or do you think that girl and her friend knew what they were doing? Does 15 sound a little high to anyone else? It seems awfully high to me. What should happen to kids who kill? Is it the parents' fault? Should they be tried? Does the following paragraph change anything for you?

Though all children are born with the capacity to act morally, that ability can be lost. Children who are abused or neglected often fail to acquire a basic sense of trust and belonging that influences how people behave when they’re older. “They may be callous because no one has ever shown them enough of the caring to put that into their system,” says Howard. Ramey argues that “we come to expect the world to be the way we’ve experienced it”—whether that means cold and forbidding or warm and loving. According to Stanford developmental psychologist William Damon, morality can also be hampered by the practice of “bounding”—limiting children’s contact with the world only to people who are like them—as opposed to “bridging,” or exposing them to people of different backgrounds. “You can empathize with everyone who looks just like you and learn to exclude everyone who doesn’t,” says Damon. A juvenile delinquent may treat his sister gently—but beat up an old woman of another race. “The bridging approach ends up with a more moral child,” says Damon.

[Zkirsche]

So when do you think that children should be held legally responsible for their actions? Do you agree with the Church, that it's 7, or do you think that girl and her friend knew what they were doing? Does 15 sound a little high to anyone else? It seems awfully high to me. What should happen to kids who kill? Is it the parents' fault? Should they be tried? Does the following paragraph change anything for you?

I think that the jury should decide whether the child knew what they were doing or not. Though anything under 7 is unlikely. So 7ish.

No it's not their parents fault. Is it their parents fault that they do it in later life? No. So it isn't at a younger stage. Though the parents parenting should probab;y be analysed for safety.

Something that seems to be a contradiction:

What’s surprising is how many kids raised in immoral homes grow up moral

They may be callous because no one has ever shown them enough of the caring to put that into their system

It starts with "Children in immoral homes don't necessarily become immoral" and ends with "Children in immoral homes are likely to become immoral."

[Crystal Shards]

I don't see the contradiction. They don't necessarily become immoral, but they're more likely to. Or am I missing something?

[-Cynthia-]

So when do you think that children should be held legally responsible for their actions? Do you agree with the Church, that it's 7, or do you think that girl and her friend knew what they were doing? Does 15 sound a little high to anyone else? It seems awfully high to me. What should happen to kids who kill? Is it the parents' fault? Should they be tried? Does the following paragraph change anything for you?

I don't know enough about the situation or the child in question to declare whether the girl knew what she was doing with certainty, but if I had to guess I doubt she was planning murder. 7 year olds only barely understand the concept of life and death as it is, and unless this girl was a sociopath or something I doubt she would be plotting murder as soon as she discovered what death was.

15 does seem high to me as well, I would argue 10, 12 at the latest, children are definitely aware of the consequences of their actions by then. Justice systems do take this into account, IE trying as juveniles. Of course this "trying as juveniles" is sometimes overruled in cases where the accused most definitely was aware in what they were doing as an adult would, which is a good thing IMO.

I think it really depends on the situation on whetehr the parents should be tried or not. Certainly criminal negligence can come into play if they were anywhere near the children at the time of death, but actually charging them with the murder doesn't make much sense unless they explicitly told the girl she could hit her brother or something.

Though all children are born with the capacity to act morally, that ability can be lost. Children who are abused or neglected often fail to acquire a basic sense of trust and belonging that influences how people behave when theyre older. They may be callous because no one has ever shown them enough of the caring to put that into their system, says Howard. Ramey argues that we come to expect the world to be the way weve experienced itwhether that means cold and forbidding or warm and loving. According to Stanford developmental psychologist William Damon, morality can also be hampered by the practice of boundinglimiting childrens contact with the world only to people who are like themas opposed to bridging, or exposing them to people of different backgrounds. You can empathize with everyone who looks just like you and learn to exclude everyone who doesnt, says Damon. A juvenile delinquent may treat his sister gentlybut beat up an old woman of another race. The bridging approach ends up with a more moral child, says Damon.

I would argue that if this "morality" only applies for a certain group of people it isn't actually morality, although this article implies that people are inherently racist, which I'm not sure if I agree with.

I think it's saying that it can be lost, but not necessarily. Children from abused homes aren't always immoral, just more than most.

Edited August 5, 2009 by -Cynthia-

[Crystal Shards]

I would argue that if this "morality" only applies for a certain group of people it isn't actually morality, although this article implies that people are inherently racist, which I'm not sure if I agree with.

Where do you get that? I am just curious, as I didn't get that from the article at all.

[-Cynthia-]

According to Stanford developmental psychologist William Damon, morality can also be hampered by the practice of “bounding”—limiting children’s contact with the world only to people who are like them—as opposed to “bridging,” or exposing them to people of different backgrounds. “You can empathize with everyone who looks just like you and learn to exclude everyone who doesn’t,” says Damon. A juvenile delinquent may treat his sister gently—but beat up an old woman of another race. “The bridging approach ends up with a more moral child,” says Damon.

It implies that if children don't interact with people different them themselves, they'll automatically dislike them, which I'm not so sure of. IE if we're "bounding" we create racists.

[Crystal Shards]

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking that they're saying it CAN happen, not that it WILL happen, and even then, I think they're referring to extreme examples.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[-Cynthia-]

Maybe. It just seems a little presumptous though, I think somebody different would be met with curiosity before hatred. Plus, they could easily be recognized as just another human being, rather than "something different". I guess that's an optimistic way of viewing it.

[NinjaMonkey]

According to British Law, a child is responsible for his or her actions when they are at an age where they are able to distinguish between right and wrong. The law defines this age to be at 10 or 11 years of age.

So, I'd guess the answer is when the child is about 10 years old.

Edited August 6, 2009 by NinjaMonkey

[quanta]

I feel like there are various gradations of morally responsible. I don't expect every 6 year old to behave as well as a 20 year old necessarily, but I do expect them to not torture animals or kill their siblings (barring very extreme circumstances). Basically, I'm a fan of instilling the idea of responsibility for one's actions in the child as early as possible, but I'm not sure what level of success I expect. Probably it will vary from person to person and even in the same person depending on what point in their life it is (and sometimes I might think of them as more inconsiderate or immoral at an older age than at a younger one).

Edited August 6, 2009 by quanta

[Candlejack]

I think Kick A Ginger Day on Facebook emphasizes this sort of point.

I'll be frank; our generation is FUCKED, not just because of the previous generation's mistakes, but because of our OWN mistakes. Most kids these days would rather go listen to their rap or go try and get some tail from Generic Slut #47. I'm not saying EVERY child is like that; its just the ones that are being taught its okay.

I digress; Kick A Ginger Day was, reportedly, spawned from an episode of South Park.

That is absolute bullshit.

BULLSHIT.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT

Sorry for the rage, but can these little shits take responsibility for their own actions? THEY decided to make a little group because they thought it'd be "funny". ALL the people involved in the beat-ups should be jailed for at least two nights. They SHOULD be tried as adults, because this is no different from a blatant hate group.

"BUT SEDGAR THEY'RE JUST KIDS, THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER".

Of course they know better, these aren't six-year olds blurting the n word on Halo 3. These are TEENS. FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND THINKING TEENS. They know right from wrong, up from down, black from white. But they decided to make a group dedicated to bringing harm to people different from them for laughs. Kids these days are retarded. We are, without a doubt in my mind, the generation that will cause 2012... or at least START the end of the world.

If these kids thought first before doing what they did, they'd realize it was wrong. Even an adult or an INFANT would see this as wrong. This group is a lot like those hate groups for Israel on Facebook;

Pointless, violent, and further proof of humanity's self-destruction.

If life were an FE character, it'd FE11 Arran with bases cut in half.

[Hero]

Kids have such bad moral values because most parents spoil their kids, and most of the rest raise them in the ghetto. Practically everyone that's left is religious, and hated for it by everyone who's not.

I made a few paragraphs explaining what I think all the effects are, but those two sentences say it better on their own.

[BK-201]

I wouldn't place all the blame on the parents. Just because they are spoiled doesn't mean they go on facebook and say "Kick a ginger today!" I seriously doubt the parents instilled racial hate and I don't blame TV shows either. I blame the children who turn television into reality.

[Hero]

I wouldn't place all the blame on the parents. Just because they are spoiled doesn't mean they go on facebook and say "Kick a ginger today!" I seriously doubt the parents instilled racial hate and I don't blame TV shows either. I blame the children who turn television into reality.

Don't worry, there's plenty of blame to go around. Almost everyone is culpable for encouraging the current situation.

It's never easy to change other people, though, and few people are willing to admit that they have the wrong ideas while they still have them.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Hero

[BK-201]

I don't really like to think of my generation as a population as perverted, druggies, etc. Although that may be true for a large portion or even a majority I don't like to think of a whole generation as having a natural tendency to the bad stuff.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Kids will be retarded kids I say. The whole reason kids are stupid is because none of them have actually experienced life. Pretty much no teenager has actually had to experience any real hardship or "real life" whatsoever. Its a given that they'll do dumb things.

[Esau of Isaac]

I think Kick A Ginger Day on Facebook emphasizes this sort of point.

I'll be frank; our generation is FUCKED, not just because of the previous generation's mistakes, but because of our OWN mistakes. Most kids these days would rather go listen to their rap or go try and get some tail from Generic Slut #47. I'm not saying EVERY child is like that; its just the ones that are being taught its okay.

I digress; Kick A Ginger Day was, reportedly, spawned from an episode of South Park.

That is absolute bullshit.

BULLSHIT.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT

Sorry for the rage, but can these little shits take responsibility for their own actions? THEY decided to make a little group because they thought it'd be "funny". ALL the people involved in the beat-ups should be jailed for at least two nights. They SHOULD be tried as adults, because this is no different from a blatant hate group.

"BUT SEDGAR THEY'RE JUST KIDS, THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER".

Of course they know better, these aren't six-year olds blurting the n word on Halo 3. These are TEENS. FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND THINKING TEENS. They know right from wrong, up from down, black from white. But they decided to make a group dedicated to bringing harm to people different from them for laughs. Kids these days are retarded. We are, without a doubt in my mind, the generation that will cause 2012... or at least START the end of the world.

If these kids thought first before doing what they did, they'd realize it was wrong. Even an adult or an INFANT would see this as wrong. This group is a lot like those hate groups for Israel on Facebook;

Pointless, violent, and further proof of humanity's self-destruction.

If life were an FE character, it'd FE11 Arran with bases cut in half.

Every single generation is accused of this. Every. Last. Fucking. One. It's always culminating towards some end-of-the-world shitstorm, it's always the new guys that will end up fucking up the planet.

Society has always had violent and unreasonable individuals somewhere within, and it probably always will. Singling out this given time as though it is demonstrably worse because of a few radical elements only falls into the same ridiculousness that's followed since pre-history.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

Kids will be retarded kids I say. The whole reason kids are stupid is because none of them have actually experienced life. Pretty much no teenager has actually had to experience any real hardship or "real life" whatsoever. Its a given that they'll do dumb things.

Lies. Obviously teen hardships differ from parental and third-world country hardships, but most kids do go through them. The difference lies in how kids deal with it. My family is a prime example. Most of my immediate family on my dad's side is dead (dad, grandparents, and brother who is homeless in Nevada, if ya care to read this). The way my brothers, mother, and I deal with it are completely different. My older brother chooses to hide it and smoke pot for the majority of his day, my younger brother is extremely angry about it, I hold most emotions in (overwhelming at times; my mom and I are the only ones who have accepted the deaths), and my mom seems fine on the surface (but is actually pretty distraught on the inside). We all find different ways to cope with the unusual amount of stress not many teens have to deal with (outside of "ghettos," anyway).

Now, this may not be the same as wishing you'll find food the next day, but this is pretty fucked up (downright unfair in my opinion).

A little less extreme, but still stressful is having to deal with divorced parents, which many children across America --especially-- have to go through.

There's plenty of other stressful events happening in a teen's life. Low self-esteem, acne, hormones, you name it. Where the "retardation" comes in is how kids deal with it.

[Hero]

I don't really like to think of my generation as a population as perverted, druggies, etc. Although that may be true for a large portion or even a majority I don't like to think of a whole generation as having a natural tendency to the bad stuff.

I'd say it's true for a majority in America, from getting to know people that come from all over the country and many different backgrounds.

I'd like to include myself in the minority that has good values and morality, but I'm sure everyone feels the same way about that and I really don't know that anyone has the authority to make that judgment until thirty years from now. ;)

Every single generation is accused of this. Every. Last. Fucking. One. It's always culminating towards some end-of-the-world shitstorm, it's always the new guys that will end up fucking up the planet.

Society has always had violent and unreasonable individuals somewhere within, and it probably always will. Singling out this given time as though it is demonstrably worse because of a few radical elements only falls into the same ridiculousness that's followed since pre-history.

Actually, this is a new tendency that has emerged since the "perfection" of the industrial revolution in various countries. Also, it's a tendency that's totally absent in certain countries, though it's fairly universal in capital-W Western countries.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Kids will be retarded kids I say. The whole reason kids are stupid is because none of them have actually experienced life. Pretty much no teenager has actually had to experience any real hardship or "real life" whatsoever. Its a given that they'll do dumb things.

Lies. Obviously teen hardships differ from parental and third-world country hardships, but most kids do go through them. The difference lies in how kids deal with it. My family is a prime example. Most of my immediate family on my dad's side is dead (dad, grandparents, and brother who is homeless in Nevada, if ya care to read this). The way my brothers, mother, and I deal with it are completely different. My older brother chooses to hide it and smoke pot for the majority of his day, my younger brother is extremely angry about it, I hold most emotions in (overwhelming at times; my mom and I are the only ones who have accepted the deaths), and my mom seems fine on the surface (but is actually pretty distraught on the inside). We all find different ways to cope with the unusual amount of stress not many teens have to deal with (outside of "ghettos," anyway).

Now, this may not be the same as wishing you'll find food the next day, but this is pretty fucked up (downright unfair in my opinion).

A little less extreme, but still stressful is having to deal with divorced parents, which many children across America --especially-- have to go through.

There's plenty of other stressful events happening in a teen's life. Low self-esteem, acne, hormones, you name it. Where the "retardation" comes in is how kids deal with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying no kids have problems or hardships, but most really don't.

This is the thing, teens tend to think that there problems are real problems, when they really aren't. This is my whole point, a lot of kids, in any generation, ever, although it will become more common the less kids have to do (which is made possible by them actually being able to do less), never have to face real hardship, and therefore can become rather self centered.

I am talking about this through experience. I luckily learned about this fairly early, but I know that I myself did things like that. It's just kind of how things go. Some people persist, but usually having to actually support yourself can shock you part way out of it.

[Crystal Shards]

Every single generation is accused of this. Every. Last. Fucking. One. It's always culminating towards some end-of-the-world shitstorm, it's always the new guys that will end up fucking up the planet.

Society has always had violent and unreasonable individuals somewhere within, and it probably always will. Singling out this given time as though it is demonstrably worse because of a few radical elements only falls into the same ridiculousness that's followed since pre-history.

Actually, this is a new tendency that has emerged since the "perfection" of the industrial revolution in various countries. Also, it's a tendency that's totally absent in certain countries, though it's fairly universal in capital-W Western countries.

Can you provide proof of this? 'Cause I'm pretty sure Esau is correct. The literature on that kind of crap goes way back.

[Phoenix Wright]

Kids will be retarded kids I say. The whole reason kids are stupid is because none of them have actually experienced life. Pretty much no teenager has actually had to experience any real hardship or "real life" whatsoever. Its a given that they'll do dumb things.

Lies. Obviously teen hardships differ from parental and third-world country hardships, but most kids do go through them. The difference lies in how kids deal with it. My family is a prime example. Most of my immediate family on my dad's side is dead (dad, grandparents, and brother who is homeless in Nevada, if ya care to read this). The way my brothers, mother, and I deal with it are completely different. My older brother chooses to hide it and smoke pot for the majority of his day, my younger brother is extremely angry about it, I hold most emotions in (overwhelming at times; my mom and I are the only ones who have accepted the deaths), and my mom seems fine on the surface (but is actually pretty distraught on the inside). We all find different ways to cope with the unusual amount of stress not many teens have to deal with (outside of "ghettos," anyway).

Now, this may not be the same as wishing you'll find food the next day, but this is pretty fucked up (downright unfair in my opinion).

A little less extreme, but still stressful is having to deal with divorced parents, which many children across America --especially-- have to go through.

There's plenty of other stressful events happening in a teen's life. Low self-esteem, acne, hormones, you name it. Where the "retardation" comes in is how kids deal with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying no kids have problems or hardships, but most really don't.

This is the thing, teens tend to think that there problems are real problems, when they really aren't. This is my whole point, a lot of kids, in any generation, ever, although it will become more common the less kids have to do (which is made possible by them actually being able to do less), never have to face real hardship, and therefore can become rather self centered.

I am talking about this through experience. I luckily learned about this fairly early, but I know that I myself did things like that. It's just kind of how things go. Some people persist, but usually having to actually support yourself can shock you part way out of it.

I think the same way as you do (a majority of the teens don't really know what a true hardship is, and therefore when they face a simple problem, they are unable to solve it). This is practically true in "nice" neighborhoods.

Considering most of Earth's population lives in cities, though(where most crimes are committed), I'd say a majority of teens go through at the very least some legitimate hardships. Sub-rural and rural areas like where I live now, though, are definitely nothing like the inner city. And that's where I agree with you (that teens don't go through much).

Edited December 3, 2009 by Ben Stein

[Esau of Isaac]

Actually, this is a new tendency that has emerged since the "perfection" of the industrial revolution in various countries. Also, it's a tendency that's totally absent in certain countries, though it's fairly universal in capital-W Western countries.

So you are stating that there was no generation prior to any industrialized portion of history that thought the coming generation was wicked and thought in a new and dangerously bad manner?

[Raven]

In the law of England and Wales, the age in which a child is responsible for their own actions is currently ten years old. It was 12, but there's a story behind why it was lowered by two years, if anyone is interested in hearing it, or if someone else already knows why and wishes to mention it.

I believe ten is too high of an age still. Using myself as an example, even when I was an eight year old, I remember my friend suggesting out of nowhere we go to the shop and steal a 16p packet of chewing gums each, and we did so. I knew damn well it was wrong to do that back then, because I was brought up to know that taking things from a shop without paying was the wrong thing to do. I did it simply because my friend was also going to do it.

[Candlejack]

Then you're a sheep and part of the reason why every generation this year is going to further turn this world into a -/1 Arran with his bases cut in half. That's how fucked up the world is right now.

Oh, and we can blame previous generations too for the shit THEY'VE done.

Japanese prison camps, the A-bomb, etc.