17 isn’t really a child, I must point out. Wars have been started by 17 year-old rulers. It’s more unforgivable that the daughters and son of the Tsar had done nothing worthy of death, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina, than their youth.
I mean, to a degree. I accept that collateral damage includes child death, as in with the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 which targeted industrial areas (not supporting the terror bombing campaigns - those were murder, plain and simple). I also accept that the difference between a 17 year-old death camp guard and 18 year-old death camp guard is so small as to be practically worthless.
Age modifies responsibility, it isn’t a simple boolean for culpability. We would regard, and rightly so, a 10 year-old as having little-to-no capability for realistic moral responsibility. But how responsible is a 16 year-old who takes up arms to murder Jews? The answer, I would say, is not the same ‘Nil’ I would say about a 10 year old.
If Anastasia had knowingly given orders to shoot down protesting workers, I would be entirely onboard with executing a 17 year-old royal, within the context of an unsteady revolution before the information age. She did no such thing, nor was she ever even in a position to do any such thing. As such, the crime in murdering the 17 year-old Tsarevna Anastasia was predominantly not of her age, but that she, personally, had done nothing wrong, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina.
On the other hand, the crime in murdering the 13 year-old Tsarevich Alexei was predominantly his age, as, though he also was entirely innocent, even if he was guilty it would not be reasonable to hold him to a standard which merited the possibility of death for his moral transgressions.
17 isn’t really a child, I must point out. Wars have been started by 17 year-old rulers. It’s more unforgivable that the daughters and son of the Tsar had done nothing worthy of death, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina, than their youth.
Can you go into more detail what you mean? it sounds like you’re fine with child death.
I mean, to a degree. I accept that collateral damage includes child death, as in with the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 which targeted industrial areas (not supporting the terror bombing campaigns - those were murder, plain and simple). I also accept that the difference between a 17 year-old death camp guard and 18 year-old death camp guard is so small as to be practically worthless.
Age modifies responsibility, it isn’t a simple boolean for culpability. We would regard, and rightly so, a 10 year-old as having little-to-no capability for realistic moral responsibility. But how responsible is a 16 year-old who takes up arms to murder Jews? The answer, I would say, is not the same ‘Nil’ I would say about a 10 year old.
If Anastasia had knowingly given orders to shoot down protesting workers, I would be entirely onboard with executing a 17 year-old royal, within the context of an unsteady revolution before the information age. She did no such thing, nor was she ever even in a position to do any such thing. As such, the crime in murdering the 17 year-old Tsarevna Anastasia was predominantly not of her age, but that she, personally, had done nothing wrong, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina.
On the other hand, the crime in murdering the 13 year-old Tsarevich Alexei was predominantly his age, as, though he also was entirely innocent, even if he was guilty it would not be reasonable to hold him to a standard which merited the possibility of death for his moral transgressions.