The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:01 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:52 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 12:57 pm You can join the UK military at 16 but you can't vote at 16.

I'm not sure that's relevant.

If you can die for your country, then you ought to have a say in the policies of your country.

That's an argument for saying that you can only vote if you join the military. Many ancient societies had a system like this.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:54 pm It's pretty common, I believe, to say that the human brain matures around the age of 25.

People often say the brain isn’t fully mature until 25 because the prefrontal cortex is still developing. That’s true—but it’s also a bit misleading. By around 16, teenagers already have adult-level reasoning when they’re making calm, deliberate decisions. What continues developing into the twenties is “hot cognition”: impulse control and judgment under pressure. But voting isn’t a split-second, emotionally charged decision—it’s something you can think about, read about, and decide in advance. For that kind of reasoning, the necessary cognitive abilities are already largely in place by the mid-teens. Not that that means 16 is the right cut off. I have no idea what it should be. Well, I guess I would say 40 is too high and 6 is too low with great confidence, but which point on the scale, I don't know.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:15 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:54 pm It's pretty common, I believe, to say that the human brain matures around the age of 25.

People often say the brain isn’t fully mature until 25 because the prefrontal cortex is still developing. That’s true—but it’s also a bit misleading. By around 16, teenagers already have adult-level reasoning when they’re making calm, deliberate decisions. What continues developing into the twenties is “hot cognition”: impulse control and judgment under pressure. But voting isn’t a split-second, emotionally charged decision—it’s something you can think about, read about, and decide in advance. For that kind of reasoning, the necessary cognitive abilities are already largely in place by the mid-teens. Not that that means 16 is the right cut off. I have no idea what it should be. Well, I guess I would say 40 is too high and 6 is too low with great confidence, but which point on the scale, I don't know.

Perhaps a good compromise is 18, where it is now.

At 16 I was still at school. At 18, I left school, and got a job.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:38 pm A pisspoor argument for not letting 16 year olds vote is that you don't like who they might vote for.

The opposite is also true.

The opposite would be that not liking who they might vote for is a good reason to deny them the vote, which is not true. What point are you trying to make?

The basic history of democracy is that over time we stop making excuses to deny certain groups the right to vote and we become a more inclusive society by granting that right. A two year change in the allowable age ranges is just not that big a deal compared to allowing women to vote, or the poor.

Maybe we should have tests to see if old people are allowed to vote? Make them identify a misleading news report in their Facebook feed and if they aren't up to it they must sadly be heaved onto the pile of former voters no longer to be trusted.

Or perhaps we should set educational requirements and quit indulging the political opinions of those who have never even studied basic introductory Economics at a top 10 university.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:38 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:38 pm A pisspoor argument for not letting 16 year olds vote is that you don't like who they might vote for.

The opposite is also true.

The opposite would be that not liking who they might vote for is a good reason to deny them the vote, which is not true. What point are you trying to make?

The basic history of democracy is that over time we stop making excuses to deny certain groups the right to vote and we become a more inclusive society by granting that right. A two year change in the allowable age ranges is just not that big a deal compared to allowing women to vote, or the poor.

Maybe we should have tests to see if old people are allowed to vote? Make them identify a misleading news report in their Facebook feed and if they aren't up to it they must sadly be heaved onto the pile of former voters no longer to be trusted.

Or perhaps we should set educational requirements and quite indulging the political opinions of those who have never even studied basic introductory Economics at a top 10 university.

The opposite is what Labour are doing, giving them the vote because they're more likely to vote for Labour.

How about 14? That's only another two years.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:44 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:38 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:56 pm

The opposite is also true.

The opposite would be that not liking who they might vote for is a good reason to deny them the vote, which is not true. What point are you trying to make?

The basic history of democracy is that over time we stop making excuses to deny certain groups the right to vote and we become a more inclusive society by granting that right. A two year change in the allowable age ranges is just not that big a deal compared to allowing women to vote, or the poor.

Maybe we should have tests to see if old people are allowed to vote? Make them identify a misleading news report in their Facebook feed and if they aren't up to it they must sadly be heaved onto the pile of former voters no longer to be trusted.

Or perhaps we should set educational requirements and quite indulging the political opinions of those who have never even studied basic introductory Economics at a top 10 university.

The opposite is what Labour are doing, giving them the vote because they're more likely to vote for Labour.

Such is your interpretation, in line with your long history of bias. The truth, which a historian of your calibre must be well aware of, is that campaigns to extend suffrage invariably take many years to come to fruition, and assigning credit to any single administration for any of them is quite irrational. This campaign ran since at least 2008 in this form, and prior such movements have been arguing for voting rights for teens since the late 20th C and those are the ones for which I am aware.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:44 pm How about 14? That's only another two years.

What groundwork have you done to establish the levels of political engagement for that particular cohort? These things aren't done at random, there's a lot of work that goes into such matters, work that you are entirely neglectful of.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:36 pm Perhaps a good compromise is 18, where it is now.

At 16 I was still at school. At 18, I left school, and got a job.

The compromise would be 17 between the ones wanting 16 and the ones wanting 18.
But then I am sure there are other positions.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:04 pm That's an argument for saying that you can only vote if you join the military. Many ancient societies had a system like this.

Need not go ancient. It is easy to see the "Mayflower Compact". Less well known the "Confidence Compact" (these people settled in what is now Sudbury MA). A rather different brand or Puritans (both the Unitatrians and United Church of Christ originated here).

In THEIR compact (decided on the ship on the way over, just as the Mayflower Compact was) anybody could live in their town even if not of their church, but only those willing to fight for it could vote << so Quakers could live there but not vote >> There is a "stele" on the town common with the text of the compact on it which is where I read it..

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:01 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:52 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 12:57 pm You can join the UK military at 16 but you can't vote at 16.

I'm not sure that's relevant.

If you can die for your country, then you ought to have a say in the policies of your country.

That would make sense if being young and physically strong, and being smart and circumspect happened at the same time. But do they?

Maybe a person should pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote.

And maybe a test on current affairs.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 3:58 pm Maybe a person should pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote.

And maybe a test on current affairs.

Or both.

When we look back on ourselves, not judging anybody else in the process, what do we see? At age 16, were we very smart? Were we complete people? Would it have been wise to give us the ability to shape a country, or even a policy?

I can't say about you at 16. I can say for sure I wouldn't have been entirely confident in my readiness until I had passed several milestones I was yet to pass, such as learning what it was to be responsible for other people's security and welfare, learning to care, learning to think longer-term, having a better idea of the history and politics that had shaped my country...

In an ideal world, would, say, 25 be too old to set the voting age? Or older, even? Would waiting until one could support a family result in more thoughtful, well-rationalized voting and social policies? It depends on what sort of policy one hopes to get, I think.

These things are decided on the self-interest of the people in power who are in a position to make the changes.

There are countless reasons concocted for including or excluding a group in voting.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 4:49 pm These things are decided on the self-interest of the people in power who are in a position to make the changes.

Which "things"? Who are these "people in power," and what "changes" are they making? I don't know who you're talking about, but I don't think it's 16 year olds, is it?

There are countless reasons concocted for including or excluding a group in voting.

Not "countless." I think we can count the good reasons. They include things like, "not old enough," "not wise enough," "not committed to doing what's right for others," "criminal," "not a citizen," and so forth. Common sense pretty much tells us who is sensible enough to vote, and who is not.

I wasn't, at 16. I freely recognize that. Were you?

You're funny

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 3:20 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:44 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:38 pm

The opposite would be that not liking who they might vote for is a good reason to deny them the vote, which is not true. What point are you trying to make?

The basic history of democracy is that over time we stop making excuses to deny certain groups the right to vote and we become a more inclusive society by granting that right. A two year change in the allowable age ranges is just not that big a deal compared to allowing women to vote, or the poor.

Maybe we should have tests to see if old people are allowed to vote? Make them identify a misleading news report in their Facebook feed and if they aren't up to it they must sadly be heaved onto the pile of former voters no longer to be trusted.

Or perhaps we should set educational requirements and quite indulging the political opinions of those who have never even studied basic introductory Economics at a top 10 university.

The opposite is what Labour are doing, giving them the vote because they're more likely to vote for Labour.

Such is your interpretation, in line with your long history of bias. The truth, which a historian of your calibre must be well aware of, is that campaigns to extend suffrage invariably take many years to come to fruition, and assigning credit to any single administration for any of them is quite irrational. This campaign ran since at least 2008 in this form, and prior such movements have been arguing for voting rights for teens since the late 20th C and those are the ones for which I am aware.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 2:44 pm How about 14? That's only another two years.

What groundwork have you done to establish the levels of political engagement for that particular cohort? These things aren't done at random, there's a lot of work that goes into such matters, work that you are entirely neglectful of.

It's not as if any great injustice is being perpetuated by denying them the vote. It's not in the same league as the great campaigns of the past, to extend the franchise to women, or to working class men.

Two years can, admittedly, seem like an eternity when you're 16. But it isn't. Patience is a virtue, and all they have to do is wait a bit.