You are conflating maturity with chronological age. We use chronological age and not maturity as the social metric of "adulthood" so your relativistic claim is just nonsense.
GreenWizard
joined 1 day ago
You are conflating maturity with chronological age. We use chronological age and not maturity as the social metric of "adulthood" so your relativistic claim is just nonsense.
Most people don't label 17 year olds as "children". The process is something more like baby>toddler>child>pre-teen>teen/adolescence>young adulthood>adulthood.
Since everyone matures at different levels at different times, and maturity itself is subjective, most societies air on the side of caution by legally defining people as minors (not children). They are called this because they are still in a state of cognitive development. The ones who are above average are the exception to the rule.
It makes sense why we do this, because minors are supposed to be ushered into adulthood with gradual increases in freedom, such as being able to drive with a permit or go to school dances by themselves before they are considered a tax-paying citizen.