How Old Is Old Enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/15ramp.html?_r=1&hp

23 10 17 years ago

coderdude• 17 years ago

I liked this article. It says what you're thinking, without saying "this is what people think."

Example: "Maybe we accept that 19-year-olds are not yet fully responsible adults for the purpose of driving a rental car, but hey, we still need someone to drive our tanks in Afghanistan."

Edit: To clarify, I'm believe the above example shows that we see there is a problem with what you can do at what age, rather than the surface meaning of the example.

Locke1689• 17 years ago

I think a problem this article doesn't touch on is the assumption that there is a baseline that every person will reach at some point. For example, we say that young people are less mature and should be limited in their privileges. This may be true individually, but it doesn't really speak to the idea that maybe someone who still has time to mature at 16 may be more mature than someone at 30 will ever be.

I'm not quite sure what the proper resolution is here. Because it is too difficult to measure each person individually it may be better to simply guarantee a certain age where someone is an "adult."

I find it very difficult to defend the law that prevents drinking until 21 but allows driving, which is subject to the same pressures and distractions as drinking (with the added consequence that driving can cause harm to others as well).

Confusion• 17 years ago

and drinking doesn't? I think you need to visit an AA meeting and hear those guys explain how much harm they did to others. One may argue the mental scarring alcohol causes is worse than the physical damage cars do, especially considering there are more alcoholics than crash victims.

mmt• 17 years ago

Because young people develop different skills incrementally, rather than all at once, Professor Steinberg says, it makes sense to dole out rights and responsibilities incrementally

This struck a chord with me, since I'm someone who tends to desire "bright line" distinctions. Although I believe the example is specious[1], I found it to be valid in principle if offensive in attitude.

The principle which validity I praise is that there may be biological reasons for different aspects of maturation and that these may be several years apart in any given individual. That we may be able to detect this objectively is encouraging, as it may obviate the political answer to the OP's titular question.

The suggestion, however, that rights are "doled" out is startling and offensive. I do hope the "Nanny State" hasn't become axiomatic. I would expect scientists to lean more toward a system based on a notion of natural rights, rather tha on legal technicalities, but I admit a tendency to project.

I do believe that our legal civil rights are merely an approximation of our natural rights. I also believe it's silly to make a knowningly inaccurate, inflexible approximation.

I would propose a variable-age system, perhaps an extension of current emancipated-minor procedures. The trick would be to test for maturity without erecting a procedural barrier, all while involving self-determination.

If Steinberg is right, then there could be several different components to majority, each with a different default age [2], or even the same default age, if majority could be had just for the asking for something like suffrage. Pairing rights with responsibilities might not be obvious, though only until the maximum default age.

Politically, I find the current situation inexcusable. Deciding, after the fact, that a child was an adult, for the purpose punishing a crime, is irresponsible, at best, on the part of adults. What happened to holding parents responsible? It seems to work for dogs and their owners.

[1] I don't believe there are laws against a 19 year old renting a car (statutory references to the contrary are welcome). It is, rather, a private company making an economic decision. "Driving" a tank has more involved prerequisites (training, basic and specialized) and supervision. Back when I was under 25 and traveled for business, I recall there were exceptions in the "fine print" on minimum age for drivers renting on official company business, a context closer to tank operation than a Spring Break rental.

[2] That this would still be a political approximation is less distressing, since its goal would be to ensure an age that is a high enoug percentile of maturation

camccann• 17 years ago

I would expect scientists to lean more toward a system based on a notion of natural rights, rather tha on legal technicalities, but I admit a tendency to project.

That's curious, I would expect completely the opposite. Are "natural rights" empirically observed? How would you attempt to test or falsify a natural right? Does the concept of a natural right provide any predictive power? How would the existence or non-existence of a natural right change the observed nature of the universe?

The whole concept of "natural rights" sounds suspiciously like moral realism, which is about as anti-scientific as you can get.

aaronblohowiak2• 17 years ago

There are also exceptions for active military personnel (any age) and off-duty military personnel (21 years at most rental places.) Further, most of the time you can rent the car, but just pay more.

I think the big issue is that the vehicle owner is not liable for damages caused by a tank ;)

DTrejo• 17 years ago

As a teenager, it seems I am forever becoming a "man" or an "adult."

So far I've become a man/adult 6 times:

* when I turned 12 and could go to jail

* early teens

* when I turned 18

* when I voted

* when I graduated high school

* when I got lucky

I still have a few to go:

* Start driving

* Turn 21

* Leave college and enter the "real world"

Future Grand Total of Adulthood:

Am I 6/9 Adult or 600% Adult? I prefer 600%.

mey• 17 years ago

You forgot when you turn 25, and insurance premiums go down, and you can more easily rent cars.

aaronblohowiak2• 17 years ago

also, when you start going bald/gray

diN0bot• 17 years ago

interesting background. as a history article it starts to get good.

terrible "news" article, though. nothing interesting in the statements it makes or the conclusions it draws:

> """Because young people develop different skills incrementally, rather than all at once, Professor Steinberg says, it makes sense to dole out rights and responsibilities incrementally. Maybe competent voting is different from competent driving, which is different from competent drinking.

> """"“Ask any parent you know,” Mr. Steinberg said, “they’ll tell you how confused they are that their kids are so smart in some ways, but still do such stupid, stupid things.”""""

How Old Is Old Enough?

Related Stories