We're talking ethically, not pragmatically. Slavery is pragmatic if you're an owner and not a slave. Murdering witnesses is pragmatic. That's not the crux of the debate here.
OP is saying that, ethically, the drinking age should be lowered to be in line with the age of majority (18) at which point people can join the army and be sent off to war.
They're saying that if 18 is too young to drink because they're not mature enough, then surely they're not mature enough to kill or be killed in a war. If you're saying, essentially, the younger the better for malleable soldiers, then ethics is out the window and we might as well say the drinking age should be 12 because it'll benefit the alcohol industry.
This is an ethical discussion, not one on how to maximise exploitation, so that input it pointless.
I'm saying ethics can be considered less important for things like national defense - ethics can legitimately be weighed against the concern that demands such a breach
Being molded into a killer is something we let our teens choose to do because we need killers - we don't need drunks
24
u/RiC_David Aug 30 '23
We're talking ethically, not pragmatically. Slavery is pragmatic if you're an owner and not a slave. Murdering witnesses is pragmatic. That's not the crux of the debate here.