Why do we seem to consider the life of a child more valuable than that of an adult in many situations? When we consider the actual qualities of a child versus that of an adult, we should find that the adult usually wins on any measure of intelligence, capability, moral faculties, and so forth. Is there any ethical reason why we should value the life of a child more than that of an adult? (And just to be extra clear, I can think of a very compelling evolutionary reason why we would value a life of child more, but I'm not looking for an answer from biology or psychology.)

Comments

Isn't the reason just this? When an adult dies prematurely -- say at age 40 -- then she is losing many years of valuable life. When a child dies, then she is losing those same valuable years above 40 and in addition all the good life years up to 40. So the basic thought here is simply that the earlier someone dies, the greater the loss.

While the common view seems to me to be based on this thought, it is not unassailable. You might say that the loss of years above 40 isn't a serious loss for someone dying as a small child, who has no conception of what such years would be like and moreover is very different from the mature adult she would have become 40 years hence.

Thinking this through further, you might reach the view that the worst age at which a human being could die is in her or his mid-20s. At that age, one has a conception of the life one wants to lead and also typically is a productive member of one's family and society. Such a death is a great loss to the person and to many others.

I think that this latter view also plays a major role in our common thinking. For example, if we really thought that the death of a child is worse than that of a young adult, then we would make much greater efforts fighting infant mortality (involving about 9 million deaths of children under 5 each year). As it is, global health efforts are concentrated upon HIV/AIDS, which primarily sickens and kills young adults -- and this despite the fact that HIV/AIDS requires expensive long-term treatment whereas infant mortality could be reduced dramatically at very much lower cost per life year gained.

To be sure, I fully support the ongoing HIV/AIDS efforts (Global Fund, PEPFAR, etc.) and their expansion to those who need treatment and are not receiving it. But I also believe that we ought to make much greater efforts toward ensuring access to clean water, sanitation, adequate nutrition and proper maternal and perinatal care -- the kind of measures that would dramatically reduce under-5 mortality.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Children, Ethics