Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
rk741 rk741 56-60, F 11 Answers Jan 15, 2013 in Health

Your Response

Cancel

That statement doesn't seem to be accurate no matter what conception we take of human nature or of what constitutes being young.<br />
<br />
In terms of human nature we can either say that you are born good/bad or that you become good/bad somehow. I assume no one will want to take the former view as no one will want to claim a newborn is automatically bad (and this is not a reasonable view of morality, so let us dismiss that). So let us assume that in moral terms we are born as blank slates, neither good nor bad. Then determining whether only the good die young will be determined on when we become capable of moral choices and what constitutes "young".<br />
<br />
Given that most children are physiologically incapable of abstract thought before the age of about 12, I would say that there is no meaningful moral responsibility before that age. The child may behave well, but not for the sake of being good in itself, rather for the sake of avoiding punishment or for garnering reward. If young only refers to children before the age of 12, then I would claim that the statement is false because such children would be incapable of meaningful moral choices and therefore it would be unfair to evaluate them as good or bad children in a moral way. If we mean good, as in obedient, then perhaps, but surely some disobedient children also die, in which case the statement is also false.<br />
<br />
In any case, I do not think young refers to such an exclusive group. When we think of someone who dies young, we think of someone who dies not only before their expected time, but long before their expected time but not necessarily a young child - usually in their teens or twenties. If we take this definition, then many people who die during this time period (even taking just teenagers) are at least fail to qualify as "the good" (I would argue that to count as being "good" one must not only abstain from morally wrong acts, one must also participate in morally good acts; not being a murderer =/= good person) and some are definitely bad. And here we can speak of moral goodness and badness as such people are capable of making moral decisions.<br />
<br />
So no, not only the good die young. It would be nice if this was true, but it isn't. Good people, bad people, and morally ambiguous people die at all ages.

Best Answer

I think it comes from the time when people's lives were in regular danger. The good would help others, risk their lives to save people, ride valiantly into battle for king, country, president or freedom, whilst the bad would always let the good go first, and concentrate on saving their own necks.<br />
<br />
Only the good put themselves out for others, and so have SO many more chances to die.

Best Answer

For our sake I truly hope that is a myth.

Best Answer

yes. been there done that

Best Answer

You and I are still alive, so drawn your own conclusions....

Best Answer

the lucky die young

Best Answer

No, I am still alive and I'm old...lol

Best Answer