320 final exam

docx

School

Wilfrid Laurier University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

320

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by mppm1

320 final exam 1000-1500 words total Grade based on references to readings, lecture notes Sources cited in text Helen Brocklehust (2010) “Child Soldiers”, in Contemporary Security Studies 2nd edition, edited by Alan Collins, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 447-462 P.W. Singer (2006) “The New Children of Terror” in The Making of a Terrorist: Recruitment, Training, and Root Causes, edited by James J. F. Forest, Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, pp. 105-119 Mhari Cowden (2016) Children’s Rights: From Philosophy to Public Policy Houndmills; Palgrave Macmillan, pp.15-24 Wall, J. (2016). Children's Rights . Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781442249783 Questions 1. Discuss the perceptions on children of two philosophers among plato, locke and rousseau and state which you think makes the most sense and why Looking at the textbook, Locke and Rousseau are mentioned as they have quite different theories and views on rights as well as different views on children. To start, Locke thought that adults should have rights as adults have enough developed capacity for rationality/reason that is needed to pursue their rights. This thought goes hand in hand with his beliefs that children were not born inherently good or evil (Lesson 1) and that children start with a blank slate of a term he coined called tabula rasa. This means that everyone starts as a “white page” (Wall, 2016, p.22) and that knowledge is acquired through experiences. Locke believes that children are not capable of having rights but that they should be the “temporary property” (Wall, 2016, p.22) of their guardian until the child is fully competent to act rationally. In addition to this, Locke thought that if children had rights, they would create harm to others or themselves and it would be irresponsible. In contrast, Rousseau believes that children have innate rationality, but it must be protected until the child is mature enough to use it responsibly. Like Locke, Rousseau also thought that children should not have rights because they are weak and innocent, simply because children lack real world experiences that are required to participate in public rights without the risk of the children being corrupted by power and persuasion of others or adults (Wall, 2016, p.23). Contrast to Locke, Rousseau compared children to “noble savages” and they should continue to live a natural life in its original state. Furthermore, Rousseau believed that children have to be sheltered until they have further developed “their own inner natural and God-given goodness” (Wall, 2016, p.23) as well as to keep children sheltered until their acquire Looking at both of these philosophers' views on children, there are positives and negatives to both which make it difficult to only pick one. However, I personally believe that Locke’s view on children makes the most sense. First, I would agree with Locke’s idea that everyone's starts as a blank slate and that people become who they are from their

environment and experiences. In addition, I also believe that people acquire their views and opinions from what they hear or learn from others around them which has an impact on their own thoughts. A good example of this is around the idea of God, a person may become religious because they grew up in an environment that was “God-centric” whereas someone who does not grow up in that environment, may not even understand or become religious because it was not present in their learning environment. Further, I believe that a child may not have enough knowledge to think or act rationally because of their lack of real-world experiences , and that parents should have “property” of the child until the child is old enough to think rationally about decisions where it will not harm others or be illogical to society. Furthermore, I would agree that parents should take responsibility for their children’s fate such as teaching good morals, and ensuring good education to become capable right- holding citizens. Overall, both Locke and Rousseau make great points regarding their philosophies and perceptions of children and there are both positives and negatives to their philosophies, but simply Locke’s idea of “blank slate” makes the most sense. Textbook pg. 21 (locke) Tecbook pg. 22. (rousseau) Lesson 1 - 2. To what extent does the CRC empower children? What conceptual and practical problems exist? 3. Are child soldiers responsible for their actions There are opposing views on whether child soldiers are responsible for their actions, especially if the child voluntarily enlist themselves. However, there are many aspects that have to be considered when discussing if they should be held responsible. In short, no would be the answer to whether they should be responsible for their actions. A child soldier is defined as “any person under 18 years who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force in any capacity” (Lesson 8, 2023) and as stated by Forbes, there are nearly 300,000 child soldiers that were active across the world ( Chatterjee, 2012 ). International law states that child soldiers are in fact victims, this can be seen as OPAC prohibits the conscription into the military of children under 18 (Lesson 8, 2023). In addition to this, it also states that voluntary conscription is prohibited. This shows that even if a child wants to join the military, they are legally not allowed since children are still in the process of learning and developing moral reasoning, as well as to protect themselves from the tragedies and harm associated with being a part of war violence. In addition to these, children also lack the abilities to understand the gravity of war and what their actions might entail to those surrounding them. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions state that children must be respected and protected from any form of indecent assault, and protected from the effects of war (Lesson 8, 2023). This in itself shows that whether the children want to take part in war, it fundamentally goes against Geneva Conventions which therefore means the adults recruiting these children

should be penalised and held responsible. Furthermore, to help prove that child soldiers are victims, the lesson notes state that a benefit of employing children in war is that “children are considered more docile and more malleable than adults” (Lesson 8, 2023) this shows how adults are actively taking advantage of children’s innocence and using their power and authority to convince them to become soldiers, as well as using children are political currency (Brocklehurst, 2010). Furthermore, Brocklehurst also states that child soldiers are used due to their inferior mental development and greater susceptibility to manipulation (Brocklehust, 2010) further demonstrating the intentions of recruiting child soldiers. In addition, Brocklehurt states that “children may be intimidated through threat of physical torture” (Brocklehurst, 2010) which is a direct harm towards minors as well as child soliders being given alcohol or drugs to confuse them which is in itself goes against rights of consent and knowledge (Brocklehusrt, 2010). Moreover, it can be seen that children as exploited for their work as soldiers due to their low-cost way to build up army forces (Singer, 2006) as well as using bribery such as paying families $25,000 for using their children in terrorist groups or as suicide bobmers (Singer, 2006) furthermore making children victims of their families’ potential selfishness and need for gaining wealth, despite the cost of loosing their child. Due to the illegal conscription and enlistment of children as soldiers, not only are they faced with the dangers associated with war, but they are also vulnerable even after the war ends (Brocklehust, 2010) further showing that they are victims of not only being in war at a young age, but also the after effects of war such as lack of identity or employment. Although child soldiers may perform acts of violence, I think it would be important to understand the situation they may be in and that they may have been abused, exploited and forced to participate in these violent acts. In addition, it is important to instead hold the adults accountable for their poor judgement of decisions to knowingly go against not only the law, but also against children’s rights and prevent children from engaging or being part of the negative outcomes of war. - Children are stripped of their agency and considered too incompetent, weak or dependent to make a conscious decision - A child soldier is defined as “any person under 18 years who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force in any capacity” - International law considers child soldiers victims - However, many children have been full participants in military actions as soldiers and perpetrators of major crimes - 1988: the additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions state that children must be respected and protected from any form of indecent assault Children and adolescents must be protected from the effects of war. They bust not be allowed to take part in hostilities - OPAC (world's first international treaty focused on ending the military exploitation of children) they prohibit The conscription into the military of children under 18 or voluntary recruitment of children by non-state armed groups BUT they allow to recruit from age 16 as long as they are not sent to war

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Forbitds non-state armed groups from recruiting anyone under the age of 18 for any purpose ICC recognized the recruitment and use of children under the age of 15 in hostilities as a war crime - Forbes reported that as many aS 300,000 Child soldiers were active in conflicts around the world - Children cannot legally be conscripted - Recruitment of child soldiers is a major felony - - International law considers child soldier victims - as such, the international community and states are called to make all possible efforts to reintegrate them into society 4. Why do the experiences of girl soldiers need special attention and recognition - Exploitation - Sexual assault - Bribed with education and money - 30% of armed organisations that use children are girls - Warring parties tend to retain girl soldiers even after fighting has ended Brocklehust 455-457 5. What is a novel about the CRC’s concepts of children’s rights? 6. Who should have the authority to speak on behalf of children domestically and internationally? GOOD: There are opposing views on whether child soldiers are responsible for their actions, especially if the child voluntarily enlist themselves. However, many aspects must be considered when discussing whether they should be held responsible. In short, no would be the answer to whether they should be responsible for their actions. A child soldier is defined as “any person under 18 years who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force in any capacity” (Lesson 8, 2023) and as stated by Forbes, there are

nearly 300,000 child soldiers that were active across the world (Chatterjee, 2012). International law states that child soldiers are, in fact, victims. This can be seen as OPAC prohibits the conscription into the military of children under 18 (Lesson 8, 2023). In addition to this, it also states that voluntary conscription is prohibited. This shows that even if a child wants to join the military, they are legally not allowed since children are still learning and developing moral reasoning, as well as protecting themselves from the tragedies and harm associated with being a part of war violence. In addition, children also lack the ability to understand the gravity of war and what their actions might entail to those surrounding them. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions state that children must be respected and protected from any form of indecent assault and protected from the effects of war (Lesson 8, 2023). This shows that whether the children want to participate in the war fundamentally goes against Geneva Conventions, which means the adults recruiting these children should be penalized and held responsible. Furthermore, to help prove that child soldiers are victims, the lesson notes state that a benefit of employing children in war is that “children are considered more docile and more malleable than adults” (Lesson 8, 2023). This shows how adults are actively taking advantage of children’s innocence and using their power and authority to convince them to become soldiers, as well as using children as political currency (Brocklehurst, 2010). Furthermore, Brocklehurst also states that child soldiers are used due to their inferior mental development and greater susceptibility to manipulation (Brocklehust, 2010), further demonstrating the intentions of recruiting child soldiers. Due to the illegal conscription and enlistment of children as soldiers, not only are they faced with the dangers associated with war, but they are also vulnerable even after the war ends (Brocklehust, 2010), further showing that they are victims of not only being in war at a young age but also the after-effects of war such as lack of identity or employment. In addition, Brocklehurst states that “children may be intimidated through the threat of physical torture” (Brocklehurst, 2010), which is direct harm to minors as well as child soldiers are given alcohol or drugs to confuse them, which in itself goes against their rights of consent and knowledge (Brocklehusrt, 2010). Moreover, it can be seen that children as exploited for their work as soldiers due to their low-cost way of building up army forces (Singer, 2006) as well as using bribery such as paying families $25,000 for using their children in terrorist groups or as suicide bombers (Singer, 2006) furthermore making children victims of their families’ potential selfishness and need for gaining wealth, despite the cost of losing their child. Although child soldiers may perform acts of violence, I think it would be essential to understand the situation they may be in and that they may have been abused, exploited and forced to participate in these violent acts. In addition, it is important to hold instead the adults accountable for their poor judgement of decisions to knowingly go against not only the law but also against children’s rights and prevent children from engaging or being part of the adverse outcomes of war.

GOOD Looking at the textbook, Locke and Rousseau are mentioned as they have quite different theories and views on rights and children. Locke thought that adults should have rights as they have enough developed capacity for rationality/reason to pursue their rights. This thought goes hand in hand with his beliefs that children were not born inherently good or evil (Lesson 1) and that children start with a blank slate of a term he coined called tabula rasa. This means everyone starts as a “white page” (Wall, 2016, p.22) and knowledge is acquired through experiences and senses. Locke believes that children are incapable of having rights but should be the “temporary property” (Wall, 2016, p.22) of their guardians until the child is fully competent to act rationally. Locke also believed that children have to be denied rights because they lack rationality to regulate their affairs (Wall, 2016, pg.22). In addition, Locke thought that if children had rights, they would harm others or themselves, which would be irresponsible. Locke also stressed the importance of education for children to become knowledgeable and become valuable in right holding society. In contrast, Rousseau believes that children have innate rationality and morality, but it must be protected until they mature enough to use it responsibly. Like Locke, Rousseau also thought that children should not have rights because they are weak and innocent, simply because children lack real-world experiences that are required to participate in public rights without the risk of the children being corrupted by power and persuasion of others or adults (Wall, 2016, p.23). In contrast to Locke, Rousseau compared children to “noble savages,” and that they should continue to live a natural life in their original state. Furthermore, Rousseau believed that children have to be sheltered until they have further developed “their own inner natural and God-given goodness” (Wall, 2016, p.23) as well as to keep children sheltered until they acquire enough knowledge. Furthermore, Rousseau believes that children were ultimately good and that it was in fact society that corrupted them and that children should be protected from said corruption Looking at both philosophers’ views on children, there are positives and negatives to both, making it challenging to pick only one. However, I personally believe that Locke’s view on children makes the most sense: 1. I agree with Locke’s idea that everyone starts as a blank slate and that people become who they are from their environment and experiences. In addition, I also believe that people acquire their views and opinions from what they hear or learn from others around them, which impacts their thoughts. An excellent example of this is around the idea of God; a person may become religious because they grew up in an environment that was “God-centric,” whereas someone who does not grow up in that environment may not even understand or become religious because it was not present in their learning environment. This shows that knowledge is not innate but rather learned from environmental facts. 2. Furthermore, I believe that a child may not have enough knowledge to think or act rationally because of their lack of real-world experiences and that parents should have “property” of the child until the child is old enough to think rationally about decisions where it will not harm others or be illogical to society. Although this can be a negative, I also think the idea of a parent being responsible and teaching their children about good morals,values and ensuring a good education will increase the knowledge of a child to become a capable right-holding citizen would be beneficial

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

rather than having full trust in a young child to make a potential uneducated and rash decision. In any case, Locke’s perception to me makes the most sense, but should not be taken to an extreme where a whole population is deprived of their rights for one reason or another. Overall, both Locke and Rousseau make great points regarding their philosophies and perceptions of children, and there are both positives and negatives to their philosophies. However if used mindfully and thoughtfully, they can be properly used in today’s society. As proved previously, I believe Locke’s perception of children makes the most sense with my beliefs. - John Locke did not believe in original sin, and believed children differed from adults - Locke believed that all knowledge is rooted in sense experience - children are not inherently good or evil - Rousseau claimed that children were like noble savages, born with innate sense of morality - Rousseau believed children were ultimately good and it was society that corrupted mankind - he stressed the need for children to immersed in nature to maintain their innate innocence (very influential)

320 final exam

Related Documents