Spanking Children
PascaL
good friend of mine, who is a single mother of two.
A topic that was raised, and that we've discussed before, has been the
issue of physically disciplining children. As well as holding
Objectivist values and ethics, I also have a great deal of respect for
Maria Montessori's work (not unrelated).
That said, neither of these two great thinkers who I have learnt so
much from, and continue to learn from have explicitly discussed the
extremely important issue of physical discipline to children.
Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
against human being.
To be physically violent is to act like an animal. In a circumstance
of self-defense, acting like an animal is justified because there is
no alternative (apart from destruction and/or death).
My problem is thus:
I find it difficult to exemplify exactly how a parent is acting like
an animal when, under certain, seeminly borderline situations, they
spank or otherwise physically discipline their children (violently).
The specific situation that was brought up was a child almost being
hit by a car from having senslessly run out onto the street and a
mother spanks her child because of it, to place a "red mark" (as I
coined the act) in the child's memory in order for him to remember the
situation.
The justification is obvious - that the benefit of remembering this
situation outweighs the pain of the moment. However, assuming that the
benefit DOES indeed outweigh the pain of the moment (I'd argue
otherwise), is violence still justified?
I'm having no trouble basing my judgement on fundamentals, but I'm
finding it difficult to fully understand my judgement in relation to
extreme situations, such as those where physical violence is seemingly
justifiable.
Thanks for any comments!
Jim Klein
news:f1ba7d66.01071...@posting.google.com...
> To be physically violent is to act like an animal. In a circumstance
> of self-defense, acting like an animal is justified because there is
> no alternative (apart from destruction and/or death).
>
> My problem is thus:
Your analysis is correct--except that I'd say "justified" isn't exactly the
correct term to describe self-defense--and therefore you have no problem.
> I find it difficult to exemplify exactly how a parent is acting like
> an animal when, under certain, seeminly borderline situations, they
> spank or otherwise physically discipline their children (violently).
> The specific situation that was brought up was a child almost being
> hit by a car from having senslessly run out onto the street and a
> mother spanks her child because of it, to place a "red mark" (as I
> coined the act) in the child's memory in order for him to remember the
> situation.
That's _always_ the situation brought up because it allows your interlocuter
to ask, "Which would you rather have, you acting like an animal or your
child dead," as if those are the only two alternatives. Simple fallacy, I'd
say.
Either a child is able to understand the danger from going in traffic or he
is not. If he is not, then he _requires_ supervision and should _never_ be
in a position where that might happen, not even for a split second.
If he is able to understand why he shouldn't go into traffic, then there's
no added benefit from him learning at such an early age that humans can be
motivated by force as readily as by reason. He's got plenty of time to
learn that first-hand...it's called citizenship!
> The justification is obvious - that the benefit of remembering this
> situation outweighs the pain of the moment. However, assuming that the
> benefit DOES indeed outweigh the pain of the moment (I'd argue
> otherwise),
You'd be right. If he can't remember as a human remembers but only as a dog
remembers, then he should be protected by his parents. Assuming, that is,
that he's being raised as a human and not as a dog.
>is violence still justified?
For all practical (i.e., moral) purposes, violence against others is the
_opposite_ of justification. While it's true that self-defense might be
necessary as a metaphysical requirement to continue living, its very
necessity renders it outside the realm of morality which, of course, is
based on the existence of a choice.
Some will argue that even a choice to continue living is itself a choice.
Firstly I'm not convinced that this is true...I think we instinctively will
defend ourselves even though we can volitionally trump that instinct. But
even if it is true (that it's always a choice), I think that choices that
don't include that necessary choice to live (necessary in order to have
values at all) are such unique types of choices that they fall outside of
the realm of morality.
> I'm having no trouble basing my judgement on fundamentals, but I'm
> finding it difficult to fully understand my judgement in relation to
> extreme situations, such as those where physical violence is seemingly
> justifiable.
Physical violence can _seem_ justifiable all the time; what it can't be
_is_ justifiable. At least if you tear those concepts down sufficiently, it
can't be. As an experienced parent, I can tell you the problem right
now..."What about those times when all of the evidence seems to indicate
that some of my judgements, like this one, were wrong?" I can assure you
that those times exist; what I can't assure you is that I have a good
answer for the question.
Me...I'm already so committed to reality being the final arbiter that I'm
willing to rest upon that. One of my cardinal rules of life is that when
absolutely no answer to a problem is able to be discerned, the correct
answer is, "Patience." I have yet to come across an instance where this
doesn't hold.
jk
Ted
PascaL <ut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
>in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
>adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
>against human being.
Spanking and violence are two different things. If the penalty for not paying
taxes were a spanking by the IRS, every single person in this country would
choose the spanking.
Spanking a child who strayed into traffic is teaching the child that to wander
among automobiles is to feel pain. The controlled administration of a spanking
is necessary to show those, who are not yet able to take full control of
their own lives, rules needed to be followed to get to that point.
The same thing goes for children who do not respect other children's rights,
or their parent's directives. This will surely bring major pain later in
life. Fix it right away.
Spank you very much for listening.
Ted
John Giddings
> Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
> in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
> adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
> against human being.
I've never understood why people believe there is some magic line
delineating proper an improper bahavior across all situations. The goal is
to teach. Some lessons are taught very well by Life. Other lessons lend
themselves to teaching before Life gets its chance. In pursuit of teaching
those lessons, I see no reason to rule out any method that comes to mind
and evaluate the cost benefits and make a decision if it is effective and
worthwhile. Teaching a kid not to come home late by beating them
excessively and repeatedly probably has lots of negative side effects.
Getting a kid to be good when they are unsupervised because "Santa Clause
is watching" or they'll go to hell probably also has lots of side effects.
Depending on the circumsstances, these side effects may be perfectly
acceptable.
I always advise parents to use the toolls they are most comfortable with
because they will probably use them the most effectively. An agressive
brute would sound insincere peddling psycobabble, but may have a feel for
the delicate shades of physical force (his favored medium). Meanwhile Mr.
Sensitive Guy who finally is pushed to his wits end may pick up his belt
because he's seen it in a movie and do real damage.
There's a wonderful Norman Rockwell paining. A new mother is at her wits
end with her crying two year old late at night amid broken lamps and other
debris of a long day. In her hand, she is holding a book titled "Child
Psycology." She's using it to spank the baby. A perfect example.
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
ce in
raising a child. The lesson you teach with force is that force is acceptable.
Kids learn not to avoid traffic or mad dogs, but their PARENTS.
In the English Middle Ages, "beating the bounds" meant taking the young people
around the survey points of a town and beating them at each marker, to beat
into
them the lesson of knowing where the boundaries were. That was the theory of
teaching in the Middle Ages. We know now that positive reinforcements work
better than negative reinforcements.
I doubt the efficacy of the advice of someone who considers any idea that comes
to mind. I also doubt the efficacy of the advice of someone who has not raised
children by any other method than the one they grew up with.
Every child I knew as a child whose father was a policeman was themself a
delinquent. Beating into them respect for the law seemed not to work.
(An earlier, lengthier post seems not to have survived the trip.)
Author: John Giddings <gidd...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:47:35 +0000 (UTC)PascaL wrote:
> Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
> in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
> adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
> against human being.
I've never understood why people believe there is some magic line
Yvonne Glarner
Ted <Te...@webtv.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3b579297$0$4389$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> [...] The controlled administration of a spanking
> is necessary to show those, who are not yet able to take full control of
> their own lives, rules needed to be followed to get to that point.
>
> The same thing goes for children who do not respect other children's
rights,
> or their parent's directives. This will surely bring major pain later in
> life. Fix it right away.
Dear Ted,
From a logical point of view I cannot agree with above statements:
Do you agree that there is a relation between (1) government-citizens and
(2) parents-children in that there is a supervisor of whatever kind, who has
some kind of power over other entities, the supervised ones?
If you don't, what makes the difference?
But if so, is it logical to allow one such a supervisor-supervised system
(2) to act in a certain way (e.g. spanking a child) w/o allowing it in
general to all these systems, namely also to (1)? Would this not open every
door for a government to, e.g., declare it's citizens all together not being
able to take full control of their own lives. (Well let's not face the
truth - I'm just abstracting - but this is not what we really want. Or do
we?) And obviously, what must follow next are the rules, as you correctly
mention, but to what extent? Also including spanking? Or do we have to
differentiate, giving some of such systems more rights to supervise their
"entities" and others less?
As for this case: I for my person cannot agree, that spanking the child
would help to "fix it right away", as I'm pretty convinced that the event of
the "child almost being hit by a car" must have had a quite negative impact
to the kid, which does not deserve to be underlined with spanking, but with
explanatory words about that specific situation.
However, there might be other opinions, and I would greatly appreciate to
read them.
> The same thing goes for children who do not respect other children's
rights,
> or their parent's directives. This will surely bring major pain later in
> life. Fix it right away.
Sorry, allow another analogy to above: Does imprisoning men having made a
fault but not caused harm to anybody really avoid them from having major
pain later in life?
Thanks for reading,
Yvonne
PascaL
> is not. If he is not, then he _requires_ supervision and should _never_ be
> in a position where that might happen, not even for a split second.
That is exactly what I was missing - the distinction and delimitation
between an child's responsibility for his own wellbeing and safety,
and a parent's for that of the child.
It really is as simple as Jim implies - that either a child is capable
of understanding or he is not. If he is capable of understanding
(determined by his age and mental development), then the parent is
responsible for teaching him how to be responsible for his own safety
and wellbeing; however, if the child's mental development is such that
he is not capable of undertaking the responsibility of being the judge
of his own actions (in this context, the act of crossing a road
independent of supervision, or playing near traffic), then it is the
parents responsibility.
From this I conclude that the parent strikes the child not for the
mistakes of the child, but for the mistakes of himself - the parent.
The mistake is that of not having ensured that the near-tragic event
was impossible. So, the parent is spanking the child for the parent's
own lack of responsibility.
Again, either a child IS or ISN'T capabable of understanding. Either
way, it is a parent's responsibility to know this, and force is not an
acceptable alternative to a lack of responsibility on behalf of the
parent.
I think the grave mistake that many parents make is not firstly
looking at their own responsibilities, before the child's. Ie. Who is
at fault in this situation? The child for not knowing any better? or
the parent for not taking responsibility, or not understanding the
limitations of the child?
I'm getting redundant now... but I've learnt a great deal, thanks for
all the input!
Ted
Yvonne Glarner <in...@glarner.net> wrote:
>Do you agree that there is a relation between (1) government-citizens and
>(2) parents-children in that there is a supervisor of whatever kind, who
has
>some kind of power over other entities, the supervised ones?
I wouldn't use the word supervisor. A supervisor drives subordinates toward
a specific goal. Citizens and children know exactly what they want and are
free to pursue it.
But governments have power over citizens and parents have power over children.
But in the best case possible, it is only exercised when a citizen breaks
a just law, NIOF, or a child repeatedly misbehaves. Even in an anarcho-capi
talist
system the bad guys will be punished by those who have power over them. And
what's more natural than any living being looking out for its own young?
>But if so, is it logical to allow one such a supervisor-supervised system
>(2) to act in a certain way (e.g. spanking a child) w/o allowing it in
>general to all these systems, namely also to (1)? Would this not open every
>door for a government to, e.g., declare it's citizens all together not being
>able to take full control of their own lives.
Yvonne, the world around us shows as clearly as day that children can't take
full control of their lives, but adults can.
(Well let's not face the
>truth - I'm just abstracting - but this is not what we really want. Or do
>we?)
All we have to do is recognize that adults and children have different needs.
Adults need to be left alone and childen need parental care.
>And obviously, what must follow next are the rules, as you correctly
>mention, but to what extent? Also including spanking? Or do we have to
>differentiate, giving some of such systems more rights to supervise their
>"entities" and others less?
I wouldn't call it the right to spank a child. What goes on between parents
and child is natural, not legal. Only when there is abuse or neglect can
government morally step in. The relationship between government and citizens
is legal and unnatural ;}
>As for this case: I for my person cannot agree, that spanking the child
>would help to "fix it right away", as I'm pretty convinced that the event
of
>the "child almost being hit by a car" must have had a quite negative impact
>to the kid, which does not deserve to be underlined with spanking, but with
>explanatory words about that specific situation.
>
>However, there might be other opinions, and I would greatly appreciate to
>read them.
Sure, if the kid was scarred out of his wits, there's no reason for punishment.
If the kid listens to reason, again, no need to punish. But there have to
be tens of thousands of peopel out there who would be a lot better off today,
if one of their parents demanded certain standards of behavior. Being spanked
would be welcomed by any kid by a caring parent over against being left free
to grow up wild by unconcerned parents. Punishment and even spanking with
the interest of the child in mind, not parental frustration.
>Sorry, allow another analogy to above: Does imprisoning men having made
a
>fault but not caused harm to anybody really avoid them from having major
>pain later in life?
You're referring to drugs? Of course the government has no right to interfere
with the life choices of adults. But it does have the right to interfere
if anyone gives drugs to a minor.
Ted
ylev
It’s enough to live according to an old universal moral
principle: “ Don’t inflict an another, what you
don’t like to be inflicted on yourself. “ (Hillel the
great, a Jewish thinker of the time of Jesus.) All morality starts
and ends with this dictum.
The case of the running child into the road traffic is a
simplification favored by moral debates.
But the gap between moral principles and real life is so deep that it
contains without difficulty all the written literature of all the
cultures.
What should us concern is, how to integrate moral principles (always
imperative) into our actions, dominated mostly by emotions. Most
people act and then mobilize rationals.
A personal statement: I never raised my hand on my children. (Now
a dangerous business- they are today over 50) I consider it more a
question of human relationship (Parent-Child) as a morality issue. A
grownup is the authority at home, (if he or the child like it or not).
I’m convinced that the use of superior force at home is
incompatible with my parental task to grow children, capable to
regulate themselves against anti-social impulses, directed against the
other or against themselves (This includes sexual drives. And the
neglect of this dictum is the flowering of the current sex and
violence culture advocated by all the media. )
But: I was a teacher of special education and had to meet children
from different backgrounds. Those children learned at home that the
quickest and preferable way to solve problems and differences is by
force.( If you have wits you are better off, but in those houses you
don’t acquire honest wits.) This habit can be so deep-rooted
that even practical everyday problems are solved this way. And you
have not to restrict your emotions if you learn to swallow the
consequences of your actions.
(Something advocated strongly by American Pop culture.)
My task was to teach them that there are situations to forceful for
you to meet.
( Traffic, authority, machinery and especially people with bad
intentions, who start to take over control of your live.)
What I’m trying to say is simple, the application is complex.
Because like most people I’m not on my own. Since childhood I
was forced to meet hostile surrounding. (First the Nazis, then my
neighbors who didn’t like us.) The answer was to join an
organization, where you are protected and can act according to certain
moral principles. So I lived 30 years in a communal settlement, the
Kibbutz. Personal live was free from physical pressure but not from
emotional pressure.
Children were brought up communally. Spanking was completely absent.
How children react to such a situation? Each group of children from
the first year on contains children with differences in aggression.
The common sense was that aggressive children need more attention and
so aggressiveness was rewarded. How did “quiet” children
take it? Did it help in the long run to preserve the communal live and
the mutual obligations? I doubt it. I know only that the third
generation called for personal freedom and started to dismantle the
principle of mutuality (Hillel’s dictum}
And the kibbutz is on his way to obsolesce.
In principle it is the same phenomena as with a family of unregulated
children (Or spoiled or left to their own) .It is easy to develop
asocial behavior. Not using physical force is necessary but something
has to be enacted to regulate behavior and this something is not a
very common commodity. Lucky are those how own it the natural way
Robert J. Kolker
ylev wrote:
> Spanking children? Of course not! But why?
> It’s enough to live according to an old universal moral
> principle: “ Don’t inflict an another, what you
> don’t like to be inflicted on yourself. “ (Hillel the
> great, a Jewish thinker of the time of Jesus.) All morality starts
> and ends with this dictum.
Hillel lived about 200 years before the time of Jesus.
Bob Kolker
f
t
b
f
t
b
Symmetry
>From: Mar...@lara.pathlink.com, "Michael E." mer...@well.com
>Date: 7/20/01 7:18 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9j97g...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>As a parent -- my daughter is 22 now -- I am opposed to spanking and violen
>ce in
>raising a child. The lesson you teach with force is that force is
>acceptable.
Not in general. The lesson you teach is that force is *sometimes* acceptable,
which is true. If your child is not incredibly stupid, you should be able to
make it aware that force being acceptable in one instance doesn't make it
always acceptable.
x
x
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
xxx
xx
xxx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
xx
x
x
Symmetry
Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and perhaps
gain insight into the results of spanking.
Robert J. Kolker
Symmetry wrote:
> Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
> whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and perhaps
> gain insight into the results of spanking.
I have an anectode to add to this. I did selective spanking
with my first three children, purely for discipline. My fourth
child came along about ten years after the others. By that
time I had "mellowed out" somewhat.
What we did with #4 was to indicate disapproval with means
other than physical force. For example, a firm stern word,
expression of displeasure and disapproval of the wrong
behaviour etc.. I discovered to my amazement, that this non
physical approach was * just as effective * as the slap on the
writst or the butt. If I had it all to do over again, I would not
have laid a hand on any of my children.
Bob Kolker
> x
Bert Clanton
<symm...@aol.compare.com> wrote:
> Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
> whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and perhaps
> gain insight into the results of spanking.
>
>
I was spanked as a child, and obviously I have turned out to be an
exemplary human being. So spanking is OK, if done in moderation.
Best wishes,
Bert
PascaL
Some parents have a much more deterministic view of their childrens
lives than others (assuming I used the term deterministic
appropriately), while other parents are much more liberal and simply
make themselves responsible for ensuring a safe and stimulating
environment for the child to develop according to his own judgements
and ability.
Those familiar with Montessori's pedagogical philosophy will
understand more clearly what I'm saying.
Simply put, though, the child is not to blame for not knowing any
better than to run out into the street - the parent is to blame for
not having exposed the child to an environment for which he was
obviously not able to safely act in.
Ken Gardner
> A topic that was raised, and that we've discussed before, has been the
> issue of physically disciplining children.
[...]
> Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
> in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
> adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
> against human being.
First, I question your (implicit) premise that all spanking is
"violence." I reserve the term "violence" for the type of physical
force that can result in death or substantial bodily harm. The type of
normal spanking that most parents do for disciplinary reasons is not
"violent" in this sense, although it certainly is a form of physical
force.
Second, the evil of initiating physical force, in relation to the
victim, is that such force hinders, impairs, or interferes with the
victim's free exercise of his rational judgment. This fact, of course,
presupposes that the victim is otherwise capable of exercising such
judgment -- which is precisely _not_ the case with a small child.
You cannot treat such a child as if he is the same as an adult. In
other words, human beings are not born with the capacity for exercising
rational judgment even at a very young age. For example, you cannot
reason with a two year old why he shouldn't play in the street, or why
he shouldn't drink Mommy's bottle of Draino under the sink, or why he
shouldn't spill the contents of his dinner all over the carpet. The
pain of a good spanking is one way (not necessarily the only way, of
course) to teach such a small child early in life that bad actions have
painful consequences -- and thereby give him a means to begin grasping
the need for rational judgment and then developing this capacity. Until
he develops this capacity, spanking is certainly an appropriate form of
punishment for bad behavior.
Third, the evil of initiating force, in relation to the perpetrator, is
that he is attempting to live in contradiction to his nature as a
rational being. For example, the robber is attempting to live by means
of predation rather than production. However, this fact simply doesn't
apply to the parent who punishes his two year old with a good spanking.
[...]
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should
> > disclose whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts
> > of interest and perhaps gain insight into the results of spanking.
> I was spanked as a child, and obviously I have turned out to be an
> exemplary human being. So spanking is OK, if done in moderation.
Me too. But I would say that having good parents -- the kind with the
knowledge, skill, and perseverance required to raise children to become
rational human beings -- is far more important than the form of
punishment used for certain bad behavior. My own experience is that
good parents generally raise good kids -- and, of course, vice versa.
Ken
George Dance
6299.0...@ng-mq1.aol.com>...
> Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
> whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and perhaps
> gain insight into the results of spanking.
So: were you spanked or not? Or by "everyone," did you mean everyone but you?
Robert J. Kolker
PascaL wrote:
> The justification is obvious - that the benefit of remembering this
> situation outweighs the pain of the moment. However, assuming that the
> benefit DOES indeed outweigh the pain of the moment (I'd argue
> otherwise), is violence still justified?
The real question is this: Have you stopped beating your child?
PascaL
489896bb@news>...
> First, I question your (implicit) premise that all spanking is
> "violence." I reserve the term "violence" for the type of physical
> force that can result in death or substantial bodily harm. The type of
> normal spanking that most parents do for disciplinary reasons is not
> "violent" in this sense, although it certainly is a form of physical
> force.
While you question my interpretation of the concept of "violence", I
question your definition of what "substantial bodily harm" is.
>
> Second, the evil of initiating physical force, in relation to the
> victim, is that such force hinders, impairs, or interferes with the
> victim's free exercise of his rational judgment. This fact, of course,
> presupposes that the victim is otherwise capable of exercising such
> judgment -- which is precisely _not_ the case with a small child.
The evil of initiating the use of physical force is more fundamental
than simply relating to the exercising of rational judgement. Your
definition is not specific enough to prevent it from being used as an
excuse to physically abuse children. According to your definintion of
what constitutes "the evil of initiating physical force", one could
freely beat a small baby since the baby does not possess any rational
judgement to begin with.
> You cannot treat such a child as if he is the same as an adult. In
> other words, human beings are not born with the capacity for exercising
> rational judgment even at a very young age. For example, you cannot
> reason with a two year old why he shouldn't play in the street, or why
> he shouldn't drink Mommy's bottle of Draino under the sink, or why he
> shouldn't spill the contents of his dinner all over the carpet.
Absolutely correct. However, it is, firstly, a parent's responsibility
to ensure the safety of the environment(s) to which they expose their
children to; and secondly, the parent's responsibility to KNOW what
kind of environment is safe or dangerous for a child and to what
extent their child is capable of dealing with the environments.
> The pain of a good spanking is one way (not necessarily the only way, of
> course) to teach such a small child early in life that bad actions have
> painful consequences -- and thereby give him a means to begin grasping
> the need for rational judgment and then developing this capacity. Until
> he develops this capacity, spanking is certainly an appropriate form of
> punishment for bad behavior.
The pain does not teach anything - it merely provides the child with a
psychological "red mark" (as I call it) which can help him to remember
the situation, but not to understand it. If the child's rational
faculties are not developped enough for him to understand not to do
something dangerous in the first place, physical abuse will not
accelerate his development towards comprehension, nor will an attempt
to force associations like "drinking Draino" = "wooden spoon". The
child will not find any reasoning between a wooden spoon and draino,
and you'll have to give him more than one session of beatings before
he associates the two consistently enough for him to refrain from
doing it.
> Third, the evil of initiating force, in relation to the perpetrator, is
> that he is attempting to live in contradiction to his nature as a
> rational being. For example, the robber is attempting to live by means
> of predation rather than production. However, this fact simply doesn't
> apply to the parent who punishes his two year old with a good spanking.
Absolutely it applies. The parent is resorting to the behavior of an
animal to instil values in a child. More specifically, the parent is
forsaking either his ability to reason with his child in favor of the
brute force of an animal, or, the parent merely does not possess the
ability to reason with the child and defaults to the brute force of an
animal to make up for his lack of parenting skills.
To sum up my implications: there is a BIG difference between the
parenting methods ideal to human beings and to those ideal for
animals, and the difference is rooted in the fundamental difference
between the two types of beings - namely, their phsycological
capacities.
Of all the skills that man has learned, it is those of parenting that
are the most underappreciated and underdevelopped. Like so many other
skills, parenting is not inherent in human beings, and it is
definitely not a simple skill to learn, but requires a vast amount of
prior knowledge and skills.
Betsy Speicher
> I have an anectode to add to this. I did selective spanking
> with my first three children, purely for discipline. My fourth
> child came along about ten years after the others. By that
> time I had "mellowed out" somewhat.
> What we did with #4 was to indicate disapproval with means
> other than physical force. For example, a firm stern word,
> expression of displeasure and disapproval of the wrong
> behaviour etc.. I discovered to my amazement, that this non
> physical approach was * just as effective * as the slap on the
> writst or the butt. If I had it all to do over again, I would not
> have laid a hand on any of my children.
Striking a child is unnecessary because of the enormous power parents have
over their children. It is not merely the fact that parents are bigger
and stronger than their children. In the teen years, this is often not
the case.
Parental power comes from the fact that parents provide a child with all
his needs and wants: food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education,
medical care, entertainment, social life, etc.
If a child misbehaves, a smack is nothing compared with what a parent
really could do. If it is a younger child you could say "no TV" or not
let him engage in activities he enjoys. If a teeenager get out of line
you could take the car keys, cancel her credit cards or her clothing
allowance, ground her for a month, not let her go to the Prom, etc.
Until children are economically independent, they need their parents for
everything.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
>The lesson you teach is that force is *sometimes* acceptable,
>which is true. If your child is not incredibly stupid, you should be able to
>make it aware that force being acceptable in one instance doesn't make it
>always acceptable.
>
What does your child believe, Symmetry?
How does your child act, Symmetry?
Would "sometimes acceptable" include nuking them because they chose a form of
religion you find intolerable? I mean, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, all of
these brotherloving worldhaters are a THREAT TO ME! So, is it OK for me to
teach
them the lesson of their lives by initiating force against them until they see
the error of their ways? THAT is the lesson you teach a child when you resort
to force, by giving in to the irrational and spanking them because you did not
think of a better solution in the heat of the moment... THEN you compound the
hypocricy with a rationalization. Rationalize = Rational Lies.
That's quite a lesson...
Fortunately, my daughter has better sentiments than that and I credit myself
with having raised her with good self esteem and therefore respect for the
"persons" of other people. She dislikes idiots, but she will not interfere in
their rights to be idiots.
Perhaps you had a better outcome as a parent and would like to tell us how you
worked it.
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
>>I always advise parents to use the toolls they are most comfortable with
>because they will probably use them the most effectively.
You are a family counselor?
On the one hand, I failed to raise a professional scientist. Playing audio
cassettes about the Planets while she slept, and doing Gilbert Chemistry set
experiments in the kitchen did not work the way I expected. On the other hand,
when she was five, my daughter performed an experiment to test for the Easter
Bunny. She left milk and cookies out where the eggs and baskets would appear
but did it without our knowing. A blind experiment, you might say. So...
later in life, as she got more sophisticated, she easily saw through not only
the bullshit rules of her public school but also the very reasonable rules of
our household. It was trying, I assure you.
Tell us about your children and how it is that you come to advise other people
on the rearing of theirs.
Ted
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>If a child misbehaves, a smack is nothing compared with what a parent
>really could do. If it is a younger child you could say "no TV" or not
>let him engage in activities he enjoys. If a teeenager get out of line
>you could take the car keys, cancel her credit cards or her clothing
>allowance, ground her for a month, not let her go to the Prom, etc.
Dear Betsy, I with the appropriate humility one should have in cases such
as this, where I, having never had children, have something to say to someone
who has children, I would like to say one or two things about what you wrote.
You said a smack is nothing compared with what a parent could do. So if spa
nking
is cruel, grounding a child for a month, it follows, is very cruel. That
is one month out of that childs life that is lost forever. Withholding food
or making her go about in rags is horrible in comparison to a spanking.
There seems to be an overwhelming and irrational need around here to avoid
physical discipline - even if we have to resort to far worse alternatives
in order to do so.
Ted
theDRaGoNFLy...
too...
(I was never prohibited from partying, smoking,drinking etc. I don't do any
of those things.)
theDRaGoNFLy...
George Dance
07211503200...@hypermall.com>...
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
snip
> > What we did with #4 was to indicate disapproval with means
> > other than physical force. For example, a firm stern word,
> > expression of displeasure and disapproval of the wrong
> > behaviour etc.. I discovered to my amazement, that this non
> > physical approach was * just as effective * as the slap on the
> > writst or the butt. If I had it all to do over again, I would not
> > have laid a hand on any of my children.
>
> Striking a child is unnecessary because of the enormous power parents have
> over their children. It is not merely the fact that parents are bigger
> and stronger than their children. In the teen years, this is often not
> the case.
I was spanked as a child, and still get bitter over the memories
sometimes. So when we had our daughter, my wife and I agreed on no
spanking at all. When my daughter was small, I did use my superior
size and strength in two ways. One, if she was seriously misbehaving
I would tell her to go to her room; and if she did not, I would pick
her up and carry her there. Two, if she hit me, I would immediately
hit her back. I won't rationalize that - I hit her because she pissed
me off - but at least I was rational enough to not hit her any more
than she had hit me, and to not hit her for any other reasons.
> Parental power comes from the fact that parents provide a child with all
> his needs and wants: food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education,
> medical care, entertainment, social life, etc.
True, and a parent can use that as a carrot as well as a stick.
> If a child misbehaves, a smack is nothing compared with what a parent
> really could do. If it is a younger child you could say "no TV" or not
> let him engage in activities he enjoys. If a teeenager get out of line
> you could take the car keys, cancel her credit cards or her clothing
> allowance, ground her for a month, not let her go to the Prom, etc.
One can also reward good behaviour by giving the child money and
goods, or (even better) hiring and paying her for the things you want
her to do. (Not everyday things like "make your bed," but bigger
projects like "clean the windows"). That not only allows a win-win
outcome in a specific situation, but IMO teaches the child best how to
function as a an adult in the real world.
> Until children are economically independent, they need their parents for
> everything.
What they need most, of course, is for their parents to successfully
get them to a place where they can be economically (ant otherwise)
independent adults.
Eudaimonus
"theDRaGoNFLy..." <drg...@online.no> wrote in message
news:AL577.1726$9%5.4...@news.world-online.no...
This reminds me of a story. Actually not reminds me, since it is about me,
and I've not told it before, but anyway ...
When I was 13 and my brother 11, my mother did something rather odd. I
forget why, but she just up and got two beers out the refrigerator, and gave
them to me and my brother. She said something like "I don't want you end up
doing this just out of curousity, so here, try some". It tasted like piss,
as far as I was conserned.
I haven't touched a drop since.
Then again, my brother is such a wacked-out guy he can't hold down a job.
Go figure.
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
>When I was 13 and my brother 11, my mother ... got two beers out ...
>I haven't touched a drop since. ...my brother... a wacked-out guy
>Go figure.
>
Well, I figure a couple of things.
(1) FREE WILL comes to mind. Here we have two genetically similar people in a
seemingly identical circumstance and son-of-a-gun, if they do not draw two
different conclusions from the same.
(2) You cannot "teach them a lesson" by spanking them... or heck even by
punishing them at all... You have no control over the conclusions they will
draw. Certainly not if you do not at least TALK about the lessons you expe
ct to
have them learn. Even so, I read my daughter WIND IN THE WILLOWS about 30
times
from four to nine years of age. Not only did she steal the car (A MOTORCAR!!)
she even acted contrite when she was not. ("Yes, in there, in there, I woul
d say
anything, but you show me a motorcar and poop!poop! off I go!!"...."You
backsliding animal," said Old Badger.) So, you might think you are "teaching"
them to stay out of traffic or to respect property or do their homework. What
you actually teach them may be something else entirely different.
Owl
> victim, is that such force hinders, impairs, or interferes with the
> victim's free exercise of his rational judgment. This fact, of course,
> presupposes that the victim is otherwise capable of exercising such
> judgment -- which is precisely _not_ the case with a small child.
Does this mean that if you know a particular person to be irrational, then
you may initiate force against him, since you would not be interfering with
his exercise of *rational* judgement?
> You cannot treat such a child as if he is the same as an adult. In
> other words, human beings are not born with the capacity for exercising
> rational judgment even at a very young age. For example, you cannot
In order for a child to learn the proper way for people to deal with one
another, you have to begin to train him in that way--which means actually
exhibiting that manner of treatment.
> reason with a two year old why he shouldn't play in the street, or why
> he shouldn't drink Mommy's bottle of Draino under the sink, or why he
> shouldn't spill the contents of his dinner all over the carpet. The
Most children are capable of understanding that the bottle of Draino is a
poison. Those who are not are not capable of understanding why you're
hitting them either.
> pain of a good spanking is one way (not necessarily the only way, of
> course) to teach such a small child early in life that bad actions have
> painful consequences -- and thereby give him a means to begin grasping
> the need for rational judgment and then developing this capacity.
You mean "bad" actions in the sense of actions that an authority figure
disapproves of have the consequence that the authority figure hurts you? Is
that how people learn about the need for rational judgement; or is that how
they learn slavish obedience to the state?
> Third, the evil of initiating force, in relation to the perpetrator, is
> that he is attempting to live in contradiction to his nature as a
> rational being. For example, the robber is attempting to live by means
> of predation rather than production. However, this fact simply doesn't
> apply to the parent who punishes his two year old with a good spanking.
Does this mean that it is permissible to initiate the use of force against
others, as long as one is not seeking thereby to obtain value from them?
Owl
> punishment used for certain bad behavior. My own experience is that
> good parents generally raise good kids -- and, of course, vice versa.
Good kids raise good parents too? Hm.
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
>Does this mean that if you know a particular person to be irrational, then
>you may initiate force against him, since you would not be interfering with
>others, as long as one is not seeking thereby to obtain value from them?
All good questions and all on target to the question of torturing children to
extract biographical confessions from them. You will not receive any answers,
any more than I did. This is a result of two facts. First, spanking children
is NOT defensible and your questions and my counter-examples stand. Second,
more importantly, is the fact that you cannot rationally argue someone out of a
position they were not rationally argued into in the first place. In other
words, some people spank their children. If they are Christians, they use
Biblical justifications; if they are Objectivists, they have different other
rationalizations for doing it. Do it they will, however, and the authorities
and reasons will follow their actions.
Very few people actually REASON their actions ahead of time. Most people --
including objectivists -- do whatever FEELS right and then seek justifications
for their actions.
So, a discussion like this goes nowhere fast. The only way it would be wor
se is
if these people were EMOTIONALLY COMMITTED to the need for spanking, then there
would be multiple topics, name calling, flaming, appeals for reason to prevail
getting lost in the whirlwind, long quotes of quotes, topic drift, and all that
other baggage.
At least the spankers seem to feel that there must be a better way...
Eudaimonus
<Mar...@lara.pathlink.com>; "Michael E." <mer...@well.com> wrote in
message news:9jkqp...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Eudaimonus says...
> >When I was 13 and my brother 11, my mother ... got two beers out ...
> >I haven't touched a drop since. ...my brother... a wacked-out guy
> >Go figure.
> >
> Well, I figure a couple of things.
>
> (1) FREE WILL comes to mind. Here we have two genetically similar people
in a
> seemingly identical circumstance and son-of-a-gun, if they do not draw two
> different conclusions from the same.
Hmm, as much as I wish that were a valid conclusion it is not. We were both
adopted, and have no more genitic similarity than any random two homo
sapiens.
What you actually have is two genetically random people with 'similar
experiences' (though in truth, our childhood experiences were quite differnt
as a result of our different personalities), with different outcomes. Not
exactly conducive to ruling out genetic influences.
In fact, a lot of the differences between us can be linked directly or
indirectly to the fact that I'm naturally gifted with intelligence and he's
naturally gifted with idiocy (to put it mildly), and I have low social
skills, and he has high social skills (though I postulate the latter is a
result of the former more than anything else). Of course, that still
doesn't excuse what he used those skills to _do_.
We often joke, that if you put us together you'd have a perfect human being.
I just got the better of the bargain, in that a man can physically survive
in 'social isolation' (so-called), but can't physically survive on social
skills alone. Well, if not physically survive, then at least be
economically self-supportive.
Ken Gardner
> > Second, the evil of initiating physical force, in relation to the
> > victim, is that such force hinders, impairs, or interferes with the
> > victim's free exercise of his rational judgment. This fact, of course,
> > presupposes that the victim is otherwise capable of exercising such
> > judgment -- which is precisely _not_ the case with a small child.
> Does this mean that if you know a particular person to be irrational, then
> you may initiate force against him, since you would not be interfering with
> his exercise of *rational* judgement?
No. Note my use of the word "capable" above. There is a huge difference
between a small child who, because of his age and consequent lack of
life experience, is incapable of exercising rational judgment, on the
one hand, and an adult who is capable in this sense, but who fails or
refuses to exercise that capability on the other hand.
> In order for a child to learn the proper way for people to deal with one
> another, you have to begin to train him in that way--which means actually
> exhibiting that manner of treatment.
I tend to agree, and absolutely positively I agree with regard to older
children who have at least a rudimentary understanding of rights
(including property rights). My objection is more to the type of person
who argues that spanking one's own child is necessarily an evil
initiation of force in every case. That's my sole dog in this fight.
> Most children are capable of understanding that the bottle of Draino is a
> poison. Those who are not are not capable of understanding why you're
> hitting them either.
But they do experience pain, and this experience can sooner or later
lead to understanding.
> You mean "bad" actions in the sense of actions that an authority figure
> disapproves of have the consequence that the authority figure hurts you?
No, not in that sense. This statement is way too broad.
[...]
> > Third, the evil of initiating force, in relation to the perpetrator, is
> > that he is attempting to live in contradiction to his nature as a
> > rational being. For example, the robber is attempting to live by means
> > of predation rather than production. However, this fact simply doesn't
> > apply to the parent who punishes his two year old with a good spanking.
> Does this mean that it is permissible to initiate the use of force against
> others, as long as one is not seeking thereby to obtain value from them?
No, for the same reason.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > punishment used for certain bad behavior. My own experience is that
> > good parents generally raise good kids -- and, of course, vice versa.
> Good kids raise good parents too? Hm.
No. I meant that bad parents generally raise bad kids, or at least are
more likely to raise bad kids.
--
Ken
Betsy Speicher
[Repost]
On 24 Jul 2001, Ted wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >If a child misbehaves, a smack is nothing compared with what a parent
> >really could do. If it is a younger child you could say "no TV" or not
> >let him engage in activities he enjoys. If a teeenager get out of line
> >you could take the car keys, cancel her credit cards or her clothing
> >allowance, ground her for a month, not let her go to the Prom, etc.
> You said a smack is nothing compared with what a parent could do. So
> if spanking is cruel, grounding a child for a month, it follows, is
> very cruel. That is one month out of that childs life that is lost
> forever.
I was pointing out the immense power parents have, but that does not mean
they have to use it. The punishment should fit the crime and the child's
ability to comprehend the consequences of his actions.
> There seems to be an overwhelming and irrational need around here to avoid
> physical discipline - even if we have to resort to far worse alternatives
> in order to do so.
The idea of discipline is to teach children the consequences of their
actions. If a child hits another child, not allowing him to play with
other kids for a day or so because "If you can't play nice with the other
kids you'll have to play by yourself," makes the point and gives the
misbehaving child a chance to THINK about what he has done.
What do you think he learns if his parent hits him?
Kyle Haight
One possibility is that he will conclude it is OK to use force in
retaliation but not to initiate it.
Much more likely is that he will conclude it is OK to use force as long
as you are big or strong enough that your victim can't resist
effectively. Oh, and that when you as the parent say that force is
bad, you are a hypocrite and not to be trusted.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
David Buchner
> Two, if she hit me, I would immediately
> hit her back. I won't rationalize that - I hit her because she pissed
> me off - but at least I was rational enough to not hit her any more
> than she had hit me, and to not hit her for any other reasons.
Sounds good to me. Retaliatory force, and all that.
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA
Ken Gardner
> Second, more importantly, is the fact that you cannot rationally argue
> someone out of a position they were not rationally argued into in the
> first place. In other words, some people spank their children. If they
> are Christians, they use Biblical justifications; if they are
> Objectivists, they have different other rationalizations for doing it.
> Do it they will, however, and the authorities and reasons will follow
> their actions.
> Very few people actually REASON their actions ahead of time. Most people --
> including objectivists -- do whatever FEELS right and then seek justifica
> tions
> for their actions.
You "argue" like an ARIan. Psychologizing is one of their stocks in
trade. Not good.
--
Ken
Ted
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
>The idea of discipline is to teach children the consequences of their
>actions. If a child hits another child, not allowing him to play with
>other kids for a day or so because "If you can't play nice with the other
>kids you'll have to play by yourself," makes the point and gives the
>misbehaving child a chance to THINK about what he has done.
>What do you think he learns if his parent hits him?
He learns that he has done something seriously wrong. In fact a calculating
kid could get mad at a playmate - punch, kick or bite him - knowing the pun
ishment
will be staying indoors for a day. Once the parents sees the pattern, their
option would be to extend the sentence to months or mix it with other things
that also do the child no good at all.
A kid who gets a just spanking, is being repaid for the pain he inflicted
on others or certain behavioral patterns that could ruin him later in life.
Around here you can often hear the word "force" being used in discussions.
If we use the examples of spanking and grounding, which one comes closer
to the sense in which we use the word force? From my perspective, it is the
grounding. Grounding prohibits the child from making choices for the duration
of punishment. His helplessness is due to force.
Now a spanking is a quick punishment that, as soon as it is over - and it
is over very soon - the kid is living free and making choices again. And
he knows he had done something seriously wrong.
Ted
Euronymous
or the pain from being grounded differ? surely you cannot say
'violence is bad just because it is'. I want to know why pain
deriving from violence is ny worse than pain from anything!
Fred Farias
He learns implicitly that people are irrational. That authority is
something enforced by force, not shown. He learns to repress his
values if he has developed any. For fear of offending his parent. He
develops a secret life of values that he may value too strongly to
fully express in front of his parents or others.
I for one will never spank or hit my child and am especially sure
after reading the thread and particularly this post.
Eudaimonus
"Euronymous" <sid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e18d2c75.01072...@posting.google.com...
You should rename yourself "Epicurus".
PascaL
children early on that it is acceptable to solve problems through the
use of force, consider the following two ideas (relating both to
Montessori and Objectivism):
1) The younger a child is, the less capable he is at placing his
experiences in their proper context and thus learning form them,
rather than simply repeating them at any random moment.
2) The younger a child is, the more fundamental are his experiences,
and thus, the greater their significance in his later years.
During the years around the ages of 3 and 4 a child is the most
receptive to learning and absorbing information, but also the most
unprepared for it. Unprepared in the sense that he is indiscriminate
about the information that forms his mind. This is easily observed by
a child's ease of adopting erroneous information and poor skills
(should he observe them). Simply put, the child absorbs EVERYTHING -
be it good or bad. What he absorbs at this time will provide the
foundation for what he will build upon later in life.
The above gives great insight into the correlation between a child
being introduced to the use of force early in his life, and what
effect this has on his later years.
@unknownsite
be relevant to the subject. Shelton wrote a book titled:
The Hygienic Care of Children. This includes a chapter titled:
Corporal Punishment. Some snatches:
p409: There are better reasons for being and doing good than fear
of Lucifer and his Sulphur Baths. There are better reasons for
being and doing good than the hope of an eternal residence in
Jehovah's Rest Resort. These reasons relate to the present life,
not to a hoped-for future existence.
p411: The injury to the "heart" of a child is often permanent.
p411: A child is such a tender thing! A harsh word, deed, or look
wounds it more than we are wont to imagine.
p411: Beating children is not a savage practice. No savage race is
known that has descended so low in the moral and social scale that it
beats its children.
p412: Indian children were never whipped and they were never
disobedient.
p413: Children learn best in an atmosphere of gentleness and kindness.
p414: No child was ever made better by beating.
p414: A household of unruly and disobedient children is the product
of lazy and unintelligent parents.
p417: Fear lowers vitality. It paralyzes effort. It shrivels up every
emotion towards good. It injures their health. It makes them nervous.
It impairs their growth. It makes cowards of them. It warps and
twists their character. It is all evil and never good.
p418: Spanking teaches nothing except fear and hypocrisy; its
emotional results are invariably bad, it does not engender
self-control in the child and its effects on the parent, a matter
rarely considered, are bad.
p418: The faults of little children are largely the results of
ignorance, accident, enthusiasm and the forgetfulness of immature
minds. Children are not adults, with the experience and point of
view of the adult.
p419: Children are good by nature.
p420: A high standard of conduct is best built by example.
p420: The ideal method of rearing children is by education and not
coercion.
From the chapter: Child Education:
p394: Those who hold that children should not be reasoned with,
but should be made to obey orders without question or hesitation,
would make good slave drivers but poor parents and educators.
p395: Give the child a reason why he should not pursue a given line
of conduct. If he is too young to comprehend the reason, make him
understand that he cannot understand now but will later.
p395: Rejoice that your child wants to know the why of his actions.
--
Jerry Story
David Buchner
> During the years around the ages of 3 and 4 a child is the most receptive
> to learning and absorbing information, but also the most unprepared for
> it. Unprepared in the sense that he is indiscriminate about the
> information that forms his mind. [....] the child absorbs EVERYTHING - be
> it good or bad.[....]
This is a very interesting point generally, and if true it explains so
much about the people I deal with every day...
> The above gives great insight into the correlation between a child being
> introduced to the use of force early in his life, and what effect this has
> on his later years.
I see your point, but I wonder... If I had a kid, I would of course want
her to understand the importance of dealing with other through reason
rather than force, and how inappropriate it is for force to have a role
in getting others to agree with you or live the way you think they ought
to or supply you with things you might think they ought to. But at the
same time, I'd want any kids of mine to come away with a strong sense of
the *appropriate* place for force in human relationships: defensive,
retaliatory, completely moral force. There are times when a forceful
response is called for, and I'd never want them to equate that force
with the kind they learned there was no place for.
I think passivity in the face of force, is just as wrong as initiating
force against others.
I'd hate to raise a big wuss.
Ted
Fred Farias <fmf...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote
>> What do you think he learns if his parent hits him?
>He learns implicitly that people are irrational.
I've been spanked. And my veiw is that sometimes people are irrational and
sometimes they're not. And I even think I can tell the difference.
That authority is
>something enforced by force, not shown.
Mr. Farias, authority is always enforced by force. That's why it is essential
it is administered justly. The style of enforcement is of seconday importance.
He learns to repress his
>values if he has developed any. For fear of offending his parent. He
>develops a secret life of values that he may value too strongly to
>fully express in front of his parents or others.
Anyone who feels he has been punished unjustly will feel this way. Even if
the punishment has been of a non-physicall nature i.e., imprisonment instead
of a flogging.
>I for one will never spank or hit my child and am especially sure
>after reading the thread and particularly this post.
If you were given a choice to keep every penny you earned but had to submit
either to imprisonment by the IRS or a spanking by the IRS, which would you
choose? Or would you rather obey an unjust law and pay the taxes?
Ted
Dave O'Hearn
> Personally, my stance - that violence cannot be justified unless it is
> in self defense - applies not only to adults against adults, but also
> adults against children. In fact, I believe it against human being
> against human being.
>
> To be physically violent is to act like an animal. In a circumstance
> of self-defense, acting like an animal is justified because there is
> no alternative (apart from destruction and/or death).
I don't think this is fundamental enough to address the issue. For
instance, eating food is to act like an animal, but it would be silly
to attempt an argument whereby eating became immoral. One must ask why
violence is wrong, especially in an egoistic morality where the naive
view is that violence is great if you can get away with it. The answer
for adults is that it is more profitable to trade with them than to
attempt to coerce them.
> My problem is thus:
>
> I find it difficult to exemplify exactly how a parent is acting like
> an animal when, under certain, seeminly borderline situations, they
> spank or otherwise physically discipline their children (violently).
> The specific situation that was brought up was a child almost being
> hit by a car from having senslessly run out onto the street and a
> mother spanks her child because of it, to place a "red mark" (as I
> coined the act) in the child's memory in order for him to remember the
> situation.
>
> The justification is obvious - that the benefit of remembering this
> situation outweighs the pain of the moment. However, assuming that the
> benefit DOES indeed outweigh the pain of the moment (I'd argue
> otherwise), is violence still justified?
That is essentially a utilitarian argument, not one based on rights. I
think that is fine, as children do not have the full responisibilities
and rights of adults, but I wanted to point that out. Utilitarian
arguments for or against spanking children will be valid to
child-raising, but they are not applicable to adults.
I do not have the experience to be able to say that spanking children
is always wrong. But one common reason for defending the practice is
clearly flawed: that it instills in children a sense of morality. It
certainly instills a fear of punishment, but that isn't enough for an
adult sense of morality. Plus, there are many counterexamples of
cultures that do not spank their children and the children do not grow
up to be murderers and rapists. So whatever purpose spanking might
serve, it certainly doesn't fulfill this one.
Finally, my only advice for parents is to tend to their mental health
and maintain a benevolent sense of life. I am sure there are many
difficult decisions to be made in child raising, and philosophy will
have important implications on those decisions. But all of this is
irrelevant if the stress of raising children drives you mad.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Dave O'Hearn
> Spanking and violence are two different things. If the penalty for not paying
> taxes were a spanking by the IRS, every single person in this country would
> choose the spanking.
>
> Spanking a child who strayed into traffic is teaching the child that to w
> ander
> among automobiles is to feel pain. The controlled administration of a spa
> nking
> is necessary to show those, who are not yet able to take full control of
> their own lives, rules needed to be followed to get to that point.
Almost, but it isn't good enough. It certainly teaches the child, "If
I try to wander into traffic and my parents are watching, they will
give me pain." It does not teach the child the causal relationship
between traffic and harm, but it does teach the child the causal
relationship between parental supervision and the potential for
punishment. So, if you spank a child for almost going into traffic,
then spank a child for trying to climb something unsturdy, the child
can abstract away from these two events only one thing in common, that
displeasing you will result in punishment. Then, if the child attempts
one of these things when not supervised (and survives), he can
differentiate and realize that punishment only happens when he is
caught!
Spanking is a lousy way to attempt to teach morality. But this does
not mean it is always wrong. If spanking a child for attempting to go
into traffic causes the child not to attempt it in the future,
whatever negative consequences the spanking has, it may save the
child's life. But at best, this is useful only for very young
children, and I am not ruling out the possibility that there are
superior ways to keep children from walking into traffic, such as
supervising them. Of course, the best way to get a child not to walk
into traffic is to give him a conceptual understanding of why traffic
is dangerous.
> The same thing goes for children who do not respect other children's rights,
> or their parent's directives. This will surely bring major pain later in
> life. Fix it right away.
I don't think spanking is wrong because it is "violence". I thing it
is wrong because it isn't practical. If it is the only way to keep a
young child from hurting himself or others, then it is practical, and
please do it! But you cannot teach adult morality with it, and it may
even become a hindrence. For something that is not an immediate threat
to life, such as stealing, it would be better to explain concepts such
as trust, and demonstrate how losing the trust of others has negative
consequences. This is an understanding that can be carried into adult
life.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Molly Browning
6299.0...@ng-mq1.aol.com>...
> Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
> whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and perhaps
> gain insight into the results of spanking.
Yes, and I would never do it except in very rare instances where there
is no alternative.
Hitting your kids simply makes them afraid of you and not want to be
around you. That's what it did for me.
I think that parents who discipline their kids without spanking will
benefit in the long run from better relationships with their kids.
Molly
Dave O'Hearn
> Symmetry wrote:
> > Everyone who offers comments on the topic of this thread should disclose
> > whether they were spanked or not, to reveal conflicts of interest and
> > perhaps gain insight into the results of spanking.
>
> Yes, and I would never do it except in very rare instances where there
> is no alternative.
>
> Hitting your kids simply makes them afraid of you and not want to be
> around you. That's what it did for me.
>
> I think that parents who discipline their kids without spanking will
> benefit in the long run from better relationships with their kids.
I have considered this, and I think it is a fair working assumption,
but I am not certain it is true. Now, I was spanked until I was 12 or
13 and slammed my father's head into a fireplace, after which he must
have realized it wasn't practical anymore. But I am a poor example, as
the man was an alcoholic, and his last attempt at "spanking" was
because I criticized his opinion of America's Funniest Home Videos. He
would also spank me when I misbehaved, and I hope that is what most
people mean when they talk about spanking.
I share your experience of spanking ruining my relationship with my
parents, but I am doubtful that spanking is the essential element
there. Perhaps if my father had any admirable qualities, and if he
only spanked me when I actually misbehaved, and had moved on to
something more practical once I was able to ask the question, "Why was
what I did wrong?" it would have been a boring little detail that did
not affect our family and relationship. There are certainly more
important decisions in raising children than whether or not to spank
them.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Jay Allen
3.4df...@posting.google.com>...
> Spanking is a lousy way to attempt to teach morality. But this does
> not mean it is always wrong. If spanking a child for attempting to go
> into traffic causes the child not to attempt it in the future,
> whatever negative consequences the spanking has, it may save the
> child's life.
I have four children, and I have never spanked a single one for
running into traffic. Of course, none of my children have ever run out
into traffic, because I'm not irresponsible enough to *let* them in
the first place.
If you know children, as a rule, don't understand why running into
traffic is bad, and you let your child run into traffic, then who's at
fault? You're spanking your children because *you* made a mistake as a
parent. How is that just?
-J-
Fred Farias
force. He confuses what parental authority is and several other
points. Authority is responsibility through creation, ownership or
guardianship. Parents authority is defined by the latter, they are
responsible for all aspects of a child's life, as Betsy Speicher, said
earlier.
This the opposite of what the government is reponsible for. ONLY
government's authority enforces by force, but that is limited by
reasonable law. ONLY authoritarian regimes, totalitarian governments
have guardianship over their citizens like a parent.
The government's true authority is limited derived by law from its
citizens, to provide defence and settle disputes.
The parent's by his or her fatherhood or motherhood.
The government must use physical force in defense of its citizens.
The parent must enforce discipline according to his judgements. If
He starts physical force, spanks, or worse, hits or slaps or tosses,
his child, he inhibits the mind of his child, creates the thrall,
stifling as that force is carried out. Even if this is measured out,
used "justly". If the child has higher values than his parent, the
parent is enforcing irrationality. How a punishment is inflicted is
therefore of the utmost importance.
The IRS has no right to exist, but it is there and you have to obey.
"The child should obey his parent." It was not part of the USA's
founding and it can only be fought on ideological grounds. Do you
think that it would let you get away with a relatively small physical
punishment of just a spanking, like a well meaning but mistaken
parent? -- than your money? Likely its physical punishment would be
equivalent to the severity of jail for a refusal to pay.
Ted <Te...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:<3b623500$0$4564$ba620e4c@news.
skynet.be>...
Dave O'Hearn
> I have four children, and I have never spanked a single one for
> running into traffic. Of course, none of my children have ever run out
> into traffic, because I'm not irresponsible enough to *let* them in
> the first place.
This is a good argument against spanking children for certain reasons,
because it is utilitarian. The following is not:
> If you know children, as a rule, don't understand why running into
> traffic is bad, and you let your child run into traffic, then who's at
> fault? You're spanking your children because *you* made a mistake as a
> parent. How is that just?
I was not arguing that it is just in the context of adult morality.
Children do not have all the rights or responsibilities of adults, and
the same sense of justice does not apply. I was clear that my argument
for the potential value of spanking a child in a certain situation was
utilitarian: it might save the child's life. That is the end of the
utilitarian argument; there are no such things as "fault" or "justice"
in utilitarianism.
Now, it does not seem to be the case that spanking children is the
best way to keep them from running into traffic, but that wasn't
really my point or the issue I was addressing. I was saying that maybe
spanking has value in certain cases on utilitarian grounds, and the
argument there is difficult. You would need hard evidence to argue it,
about whether spanking worked and was the best method that worked.
This was in contrast to the simplicity of the argument against
spanking being a proper method of teaching adult morality. It clearly
is not, and one does not need any special evidence about childhood
development to know this.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Tom S.
"Jay Allen" <allenja...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5707a598.01072...@posting.google.com...
> If you know children, as a rule, don't understand why running into
> traffic is bad, and you let your child run into traffic, then who's at
> fault? You're spanking your children because *you* made a mistake as a
> parent. How is that just?
BINGO!
This is the main part and the part the "spankers" can't get through their
thick heads.
Rearing children entails TEACHING them. This is something that starts when
the child is still in diapers. If a kid is "out of control", when did that
start. It didn't arise spontaneously. You can't reason with them when
they're older if you didn't give them the fundamentals of reasoning from
their early years. If you think you're going to teach these things "when
they're older", you're already too late. If you think you're going to teach
them responsibility and other good habits when they turn fourteen, sixteen
or eighteen, you're completely delusional.
My observation is that "spankers" don't reason well can't think things
through to their logical conclusions and show many other signs that coincide
with mental midgets. It's small wonder that they resort to brute force
rather than intelligent responses. No small wonder, too, that their kids
show similar traits.
Tom Scheeler
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
theDRaGoNFLy...
doing?
-Resorting to violence where his reason didn't work, or resorting to
violence without even trying to explain the problem to the child.
Now, what values do you want to teach your children? That violence i the
solution when you dont get what you want?!?
theDRaGoNFLy...
Dave O'Hearn
> When the parent is spanking, what is the function of what he is accually
> doing?
> -Resorting to violence where his reason didn't work, or resorting to
> violence without even trying to explain the problem to the child.
Presumably, the counter argument to this is that the child does not
understand reason, so the otherwise superior choice of rationally
explaining things to the child is inapplicable.
Now, I find this very unsatisfying. It seems that if the child doesn't
understand reason, he isn't going to understand why you're spanking
him either. The only grounds I can see spanking defended on are purely
utilitarian ones, if it is, in some circumstances, the best way of
keeping the child alive until he can begin to use reason. But I can't
think of any way that could be the case; supervision seems to solve
any problem that spanking could.
> Now, what values do you want to teach your children? That violence i the
> solution when you dont get what you want?!?
I doubt young children can grasp that. Most likely, they simply get,
"If I don't do what my parents say, I'll get hurt."
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> Now, I find this very unsatisfying. It seems that if the child doesn't
> understand reason, he isn't going to understand why you're spanking
> him either.
Not on a conceptual level. But he will understand it on a perceptual
level, in the form of pain associated with a bad act. Human
cognition often begins with the plain-pleasure mechanism that is
built into all of us.
> The only grounds I can see spanking defended on are purely
> utilitarian ones, if it is, in some circumstances, the best way of
> keeping the child alive until he can begin to use reason. But I can't
> think of any way that could be the case; supervision seems to solve
> any problem that spanking could.
But spanking may accelerate the child's learning process, which may
be good because you cannot supervise the child every waking moment of
every day no matter how hard you try. The more the child knows, and
the earlier in life he knows, the less likely something bad will
happen to him in one of those inevitable unsupervised moments of his
life.
Again, I'm not necessarily defending spanking -- there are good
arguments on both sides -- but I am objecting to the entirely
predicable, knee-jerk, PC influenced reactions against spanking that
I have read on this thread. I'm not directing this comment at Dave
O'Hearn (who IMO has made some good, thoughtful comments on this
issue), but to some of the others who are attempting to deduce
arguments against spanking from abstract libertarian principles about
the evils of the use of force, principles that apply to normal adult
human relationships, but not in all respects to the parent-child
relationship.
[...]
--
Ken
PascaL
1989703@news>...
> Dave O'Hearn says...
>
> > Now, I find this very unsatisfying. It seems that if the child doesn't
> > understand reason, he isn't going to understand why you're spanking
> > him either.
>
> Not on a conceptual level. But he will understand it on a perceptual
> level, in the form of pain associated with a bad act. Human
> cognition often begins with the plain-pleasure mechanism that is
> built into all of us.
As I said in a previous post, you're going to have to hit a child more
than once before he'll associate "Draino" with "wooden spoon". At
best, he'll make the association the second or third time; at worst,
by the time the association is made, he'll have been better off
drinking the Draino.
While trying to force the child to make an association, he'll
naturally, and much more easily, implicitly observe that violence is
an acceptable method of solving problems. This lesson will be taught
without fail - the value of the association pales in comparison.
>
> > The only grounds I can see spanking defended on are purely
> > utilitarian ones, if it is, in some circumstances, the best way of
> > keeping the child alive until he can begin to use reason. But I can't
> > think of any way that could be the case; supervision seems to solve
> > any problem that spanking could.
>
> But spanking may accelerate the child's learning process...
Force can replace the learning process (to a certain extent), but it
can't accelerate it. I'd feel it a safe estimation that the vast
majority of parents who strike their children do not, fundamentally,
understand the difference between force and reason, and as a
consequence, use them interchangeably.
> which may
> be good because you cannot supervise the child every waking moment of
> every day no matter how hard you try.
Then you shouldn't be a parent because that is the essence of your
responsibility as such. It IS possible to supervise a child 100% of
the time, though, not in the sense that you obviously meant (which was
visually). Direct supervision is only one aspect of rearing children.
More imporantly, and broader a concept, is that of ensuring a proper
environment for the child to grow in - by his own effort. Of paramount
imporantance, obviously, is the safety of the environment - and that
is really not a difficult task (though, it does require knowledge not
inherited by simply conceiving a child).
Personally, I believe there is ALWAYS a better disciplinary
alternative than striking a child. Considering the parenting skills of
most people (which is dismal at best), the solution lies in educating
the parent before attempting to educate (or rear, an infant).
I remember a quote from something I just read, that went something
like: "of all the jobs that a human being can be responsible for, it
is parenting that he is most poorly prepared for." I believe the quote
was from a Montessori's "The Discovery of the Child" - which I am
currently reading.
> Again, I'm not necessarily defending spanking -- there are good
> arguments on both sides -- but I am objecting to the entirely
> predicable, knee-jerk, PC influenced reactions against spanking that
> I have read on this thread. I'm not directing this comment at Dave
> O'Hearn (who IMO has made some good, thoughtful comments on this
> issue), but to some of the others who are attempting to deduce
> arguments against spanking from abstract libertarian principles about
> the evils of the use of force, principles that apply to normal adult
> human relationships, but not in all respects to the parent-child
> relationship.
>
> [...]
I take it you're implying that sometimes principles just don't cut it
and man needs to resort to irrational, animalistic behavior.
Ken Gardner
> As I said in a previous post, you're going to have to hit a child more
> than once before he'll associate "Draino" with "wooden spoon".
Not necessarily. Sometimes once will be enough. Sometimes zero will
be enough.
> At best, he'll make the association the second or third time;
Which is a very good thing...
> at worst, by the time the association is made, he'll have been better off
> drinking the Draino.
You mean, better off dead? I don't think so.
> While trying to force the child to make an association, he'll
> naturally, and much more easily, implicitly observe that violence is
> an acceptable method of solving problems.
Not necessarily. He'll learn that certain actions will result in
immediate pain. Later on, when he actually begins developing his
capacity for rational judgment, he'll learn that these same actions
could have caused him harm (and pain) much worse than the spanking.
He may then draw the correct conclusion -- not that "violence" (as
if a normal spanking is an act of violence -- you are begging the
related question of whether this type of spanking is violence) is an
acceptable method of solving problems, but that bad or harmful
actions have painful consequences and therefore should be avoided.
> This lesson will be taught without fail - the value of the association
> pales in comparison.
Not necessarily "without fail." Perhaps not very often at all. You
are making lots of assertions that you have no way of proving.
> > But spanking may accelerate the child's learning process...
> Force can replace the learning process (to a certain extent), but it
> can't accelerate it.
Not necessarily. Pain is a form of error-correction, and error-
correction is part of learning. Only the pain of a spanking is much
less then the pain of drinking a poison such as Draino.
> I'd feel it a safe estimation that the vast
> majority of parents who strike their children do not, fundamentally,
> understand the difference between force and reason, and as a
> consequence, use them interchangeably.
I suspect that you don't have a shred of evidence to back this claim,
which is probably why you are resorting to what you feel rather than
what you know. And, in fact, you really don't know one way or the
other.
> > which may be good because you cannot supervise the child every waking
> >moment of every day no matter how hard you try.
> Then you shouldn't be a parent because that is the essence of your
> responsibility as such.
According to this "logic," no one should ever be a parent. It is
simply impossible for even the most vigilant and responsible of
parents to supervise their children every moment of every day.
> It IS possible to supervise a child 100% of
> the time, though, not in the sense that you obviously meant (which was
> visually). Direct supervision is only one aspect of rearing children.
> More imporantly, and broader a concept, is that of ensuring a proper
> environment for the child to grow in - by his own effort. Of paramount
> imporantance, obviously, is the safety of the environment - and that
> is really not a difficult task (though, it does require knowledge not
> inherited by simply conceiving a child).
But only the visual type of supervision is effective for keeping
children out of trouble. And even a vigilant, responsible parent may
not have noticed the quarter or small pin that the infant just put
into his mouth.
> Personally, I believe there is ALWAYS a better disciplinary
> alternative than striking a child. Considering the parenting skills of
> most people (which is dismal at best), the solution lies in educating
> the parent before attempting to educate (or rear, an infant).
Without commenting on something I don't know (the parenting skills of
most people), I agree that there may be (and probably are) better
disciplinary alternatives than spanking.
But I disagree with the (dogmatic) notion that spanking is always the
worst alternative. I think it depends on the particular facts and
circumstances of each situation. I was spanked as a small child
(only when I deserved it), and I turned out just fine. I have known
kids who were not spanked who grew up to be disasters.
> I remember a quote from something I just read, that went something
> like: "of all the jobs that a human being can be responsible for, it
> is parenting that he is most poorly prepared for." I believe the quote
> was from a Montessori's "The Discovery of the Child" - which I am
> currently reading.
This proposition is debatable. In my experience, people who were
themselves raised well do a much better job raising children than
people who were themselves raised poorly.
> > Again, I'm not necessarily defending spanking -- there are good
> > arguments on both sides -- but I am objecting to the entirely
> > predicable, knee-jerk, PC influenced reactions against spanking that
> > I have read on this thread. I'm not directing this comment at Dave
> > O'Hearn (who IMO has made some good, thoughtful comments on this
> > issue), but to some of the others who are attempting to deduce
> > arguments against spanking from abstract libertarian principles about
> > the evils of the use of force, principles that apply to normal adult
> > human relationships, but not in all respects to the parent-child
> > relationship.
> >
> > [...]
> I take it you're implying that sometimes principles just don't cut it
> and man needs to resort to irrational, animalistic behavior.
Obviously, I'm saying no such thing. I'll add here only that I
reject your premise that spanking always constitutes "irrational,
animalistic behavior." This type of argument is no different from
the Kantian argument that you should never tell a lie even to a child
molester who wants to know where your small daughter is.
--
Ken
Dave O'Hearn
> Again, I'm not necessarily defending spanking -- there are good
> arguments on both sides -- but I am objecting to the entirely
> predicable, knee-jerk, PC influenced reactions against spanking that
> I have read on this thread. I'm not directing this comment at Dave
> O'Hearn (who IMO has made some good, thoughtful comments on this
> issue), but to some of the others who are attempting to deduce
> arguments against spanking from abstract libertarian principles about
> the evils of the use of force, principles that apply to normal adult
> human relationships, but not in all respects to the parent-child
> relationship.
One thing I am fairly certain of is that spanking won't do any good,
or will at least do more harm than good, if the child does not respect
the parent doing it. If there is respect, the child can move on from
the most basic lesson of "Damn, this hurts," to, "And my parent is
good and is usually so nice to me, so I must have done something wrong
for this to be happening." If the child does not respect the parent,
for whatever reason, it is just going to make this disrespect worse.
So I think there are some cases where spanking will have a beneficial
result, which is one half of it being good in a utilitarian context.
(The other half is that there is no superior alternative, of which I
am not certain.) But really, I think it is a minor issue, as it seems
it would only work if the child respects the parent, and that is a
much more involved issue than the simple choice of whether to spank or
not.
And frankly, since people have limitted time in which to think about
their choices, and parents have even less time with all their
responsibilities, it may be totally irrelevant. It may be that energy
invested in choosing whether to spank or not is better spent
elsewhere. I am reminded of advice in a computer architechure book I
have, which says that if a decision is difficult to make rationally,
it probably is not an important decision. Epistemologically, this is
just a way of stating that something is a borderline case that does
not effect essentials.
--
Dave O'Hearn
George Dance
5d989709@news>...
> PascaL says...
>
> > As I said in a previous post, you're going to have to hit a child more
> > than once before he'll associate "Draino" with "wooden spoon".
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes once will be enough. Sometimes zero will
> be enough.
>
> > At best, he'll make the association the second or third time;
>
> Which is a very good thing...
>
> > at worst, by the time the association is made, he'll have been better off
> > drinking the Draino.
>
> You mean, better off dead? I don't think so.
>
> > While trying to force the child to make an association, he'll
> > naturally, and much more easily, implicitly observe that violence is
> > an acceptable method of solving problems.
>
> Not necessarily. He'll learn that certain actions will result in
> immediate pain. Later on, when he actually begins developing his
> capacity for rational judgment, he'll learn that these same actions
> could have caused him harm (and pain) much worse than the spanking.
> He may then draw the correct conclusion -- not that "violence" (as
> if a normal spanking is an act of violence -- you are begging the
> related question of whether this type of spanking is violence) is an
> acceptable method of solving problems, but that bad or harmful
> actions have painful consequences and therefore should be avoided.
I detect a distinct element of surrealism in this Draino digression.
Have you been a parent? Do you not know that a rule of good parenting
is, when one has toddlers, to keep poisons in a top cupboard where the
child can't get at them?
If a toddler is drinking the family Draino, that means the toddler's
parents made a mistake. Does that mean that the parents should be
beaten up? That would certainly accelerate _their_ learning process;
and it would be a simple matter for the police to drive over to the ER
and administer the beating right then and there.
Yet I don't think you would leap to that conclusion when it comes to
adults. Do you make a distinction between a child and an adult, one
which to you justifies treating a child as if it has less rights than
an adult?
Ken Gardner
[...]
> Yet I don't think you would leap to that conclusion when it comes to
> adults. Do you make a distinction between a child and an adult, one
> which to you justifies treating a child as if it has less rights than
> an adult?
I would say that you don't treat the child as if he has already
developed an adult capacity for rational judgment. I would further
say, however, that to the extent that he does develop that capacity
-- because eventually he will -- it is appropriate to treat him as
having that capacity rather than as lacking it. It's ultimately a
timing issue, and the particular facts and circumstances of the
particular parent-child relationship. The same spanking that -- I
stress _arguably_ -- may have helped the two year old may be
detrimental to, say, a six year old.
--
Ken
PascaL
You're not spanking the child for drinking Draino so much as you are
punishing him for being curious - ie. for being a child; an explorer.
The Draino example is actually not as difficult to consider as perhaps
a child who hits another, would be.
PascaL
5d989709@news>...
> PascaL says...
>
> > As I said in a previous post, you're going to have to hit a child more
> > than once before he'll associate "Draino" with "wooden spoon".
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes once will be enough. Sometimes zero will
> be enough.
>
> > At best, he'll make the association the second or third time;
>
> Which is a very good thing...
The association may be good, but what about the impact the of this
violence on such a young human being? Keep in mind that we're speaking
of a being who is at his most impressionable and "absorbent" stage in
his life - the stage where he establishes his mental foundations.
> > While trying to force the child to make an association, he'll
> > naturally, and much more easily, implicitly observe that violence is
> > an acceptable method of solving problems.
>
> Not necessarily. He'll learn that certain actions will result in
> immediate pain. Later on, when he actually begins developing his
> capacity for rational judgment, he'll learn that these same actions
> could have caused him harm (and pain) much worse than the spanking.
> He may then draw the correct conclusion -- not that "violence" (as
> if a normal spanking is an act of violence -- you are begging the
> related question of whether this type of spanking is violence) is an
> acceptable method of solving problems, but that bad or harmful
> actions have painful consequences and therefore should be avoided.
Why does the pain need to be physical?
Yes - spanking = violence.
What is "a normal spanking"?
>
> > This lesson will be taught without fail - the value of the association
> > pales in comparison.
>
> Not necessarily "without fail." Perhaps not very often at all. You
> are making lots of assertions that you have no way of proving.
>
> > > But spanking may accelerate the child's learning process...
>
> > Force can replace the learning process (to a certain extent), but it
> > can't accelerate it.
>
> Not necessarily. Pain is a form of error-correction, and error-
> correction is part of learning. Only the pain of a spanking is much
> less then the pain of drinking a poison such as Draino.
I'd argue that spanking is too *artificial* a form of
error-correction, by virtue of being too indirectly related and,
often, distant (time-wise) from the act (of drinking the draino).
>
> > I'd feel it a safe estimation that the vast
> > majority of parents who strike their children do not, fundamentally,
> > understand the difference between force and reason, and as a
> > consequence, use them interchangeably.
>
> I suspect that you don't have a shred of evidence to back this claim,
> which is probably why you are resorting to what you feel rather than
> what you know. And, in fact, you really don't know one way or the
> other.
This is much more observation than feeling - I've maintained a great
interest in observing parent-child relationships for the past ten
years both as someone who is employed in the care of children and as
one who has a passionate interest in studying and observing their
development.
>
> > > which may be good because you cannot supervise the child every waking
> > >moment of every day no matter how hard you try.
>
> > Then you shouldn't be a parent because that is the essence of your
> > responsibility as such.
>
> According to this "logic," no one should ever be a parent. It is
> simply impossible for even the most vigilant and responsible of
> parents to supervise their children every moment of every day.
>
> > It IS possible to supervise a child 100% of
> > the time, though, not in the sense that you obviously meant (which was
> > visually). Direct supervision is only one aspect of rearing children.
> > More imporantly, and broader a concept, is that of ensuring a proper
> > environment for the child to grow in - by his own effort. Of paramount
> > imporantance, obviously, is the safety of the environment - and that
> > is really not a difficult task (though, it does require knowledge not
> > inherited by simply conceiving a child).
>
> But only the visual type of supervision is effective for keeping
> children out of trouble. And even a vigilant, responsible parent may
> not have noticed the quarter or small pin that the infant just put
> into his mouth.
Obviously we need some specific contexts here - especially with
regards to your first statement. If you're speaking of infants, as in
less than 18 months old, yes - they should be under the protection of
a watchfull eye during all of their waking hours. As they grow and
develop their independence, the less this is necessary.
> But I disagree with the (dogmatic) notion that spanking is always the
> worst alternative. I think it depends on the particular facts and
> circumstances of each situation. I was spanked as a small child
> (only when I deserved it), and I turned out just fine. I have known
> kids who were not spanked who grew up to be disasters.
That's a bit of a moot point since the opposite is just as easily
observable. The essential considerations are: 1) that it IS possible
to rear a child without spanking them; and, 2) how does one accomplish
this?
How many parents, who spank their children, do you really think
consider to firstly criticize their own resposibility abd behavior
relating to their child's actions vs. simply considering the child's
actions devoid of any context? This isn't a very well formulated idea,
so I'll try to expand... the most imporant fundamental of parenting
that every parent should know and understand: It is a parent's
responsibility to ensure a safe environment that is conducive to their
children developing their independence. Naturally, if this is the
fundamental premise of parenting, then it should also be the first
thing to check when something goes *wrong*.
Simply put, don't spank the child for being a child - ie. curious
about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING; criticize yourself and take personal
responsibility for having neglected or failed in your fundamental
responsibility as a parent.
> Obviously, I'm saying no such thing. I'll add here only that I
> reject your premise that spanking always constitutes "irrational,
> animalistic behavior." This type of argument is no different from
> the Kantian argument that you should never tell a lie even to a child
> molester who wants to know where your small daughter is.
Why would you give a child molester _any_ informaiton in the first
place - true or false?
Anyway, my greatest point is that parents should default to
critisizing themselves and their own responsibilities as a parent
prior to considering spanking their children, or even imposing upon
them any direct disciplinary actions. Discipline is best achieved
through independence, not by the hands of others - even parents.
As rational human beings (not even necessarily Objectivists), we
strive towards ideals. Should not the ideal, in regards to our debate,
be the achievement of enough parenting skills to not *feel* the need
strike a child? (I emphasize *feel* because spanking children is
generally more an instinctual, and spur-of-the-moment reaction than
one that is thorougly rationalized against other alternatives).
Ken Gardner
> > > At best, he'll make the association the second or third time;
> > Which is a very good thing...
> The association may be good, but what about the impact the of this
> violence on such a young human being? Keep in mind that we're speaking
> of a being who is at his most impressionable and "absorbent" stage in
> his life - the stage where he establishes his mental foundations.
First, it is pointless, even counterproductive, to keep using an
emotionally charged word such as "violence" to describe a normal
spanking. As I have already made clear several times on this thread,
I reject the premise that a normal spanking is a form of violence.
Second, you are assuming that a normal spanking has inherently bad
effects on a child. I reject that premise as well for reasons that I
have already explained.
Third, you appear to assume that the only lesson that a child ever
learns from a normal (and deserved) spanking is that "violence" is an
appropriate way to deal with others. That premise, too, is simply
false.
Fourth, I am not necessarily defending spanking of children as a form
of discipline or learning. I'm questioning your assertions _against_
spanking. In particular, I think you are making sweeping
overgeneralizations on the subject that simply do not stand up to the
actual facts of many particular cases and situations in which a
parent spanks a child.
[...]
> I'd argue that spanking is too *artificial* a form of
> error-correction, by virtue of being too indirectly related and,
> often, distant (time-wise) from the act (of drinking the draino).
This argument is debatable at best, wishful thinking on your part at
worst. I don't believe that one can make truthful sweeping
generalizations of this kind on this subject.
> > > I'd feel it a safe estimation that the vast
> > > majority of parents who strike their children do not, fundamentally,
> > > understand the difference between force and reason, and as a
> > > consequence, use them interchangeably.
[...]
> This is much more observation than feeling - I've maintained a great
> interest in observing parent-child relationships for the past ten
> years both as someone who is employed in the care of children and as
> one who has a passionate interest in studying and observing their
> development.
Same comment as the second sentence of my preceding comment. There is
simply no way that you can validly generalize, much less prove, from
your own limited observations that the vast majority of the millions
of parents who spank their children do not understand the difference
between force and reason.
[...]
> > But I disagree with the (dogmatic) notion that spanking is always the
> > worst alternative. I think it depends on the particular facts and
> > circumstances of each situation. I was spanked as a small child
> > (only when I deserved it), and I turned out just fine. I have known
> > kids who were not spanked who grew up to be disasters.
> That's a bit of a moot point since the opposite is just as easily
> observable. The essential considerations are: 1) that it IS possible
> to rear a child without spanking them; and, 2) how does one accomplish
> this?
I don't dispute either point. I dispute the different premise that
spanking is always bad, necessarily bad, universally bad. Now you
appear to agree with me, at least to the point of conceding that
there is evidence supporting both sides of this issue. That's my
whole point.
> How many parents, who spank their children, do you really think
> consider to firstly criticize their own resposibility and behavior
> relating to their child's actions vs. simply considering the child's
> actions devoid of any context?
I don't know. You don't, either. And there is nothing necessarily
inconsistent or wrong with (1) spanking the child for doing something
bad and (2) also criticizing oneself for allowing the child's bad
action to happen.
> This isn't a very well formulated idea,
> so I'll try to expand... the most imporant fundamental of parenting
> that every parent should know and understand: It is a parent's
> responsibility to ensure a safe environment that is conducive to their
> children developing their independence. Naturally, if this is the
> fundamental premise of parenting, then it should also be the first
> thing to check when something goes *wrong*.
Sure. But this fact doesn't prove that spanking is therefore always
bad.
> Simply put, don't spank the child for being a child - ie. curious
> about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING; criticize yourself and take personal
> responsibility for having neglected or failed in your fundamental
> responsibility as a parent.
Sometimes you can and should do both.
[...]
--
Ken
Ken Gardner
> You're not spanking the child for drinking Draino so much as you are
> punishing him for being curious - ie. for being a child; an explorer.
But sometimes curiosity does kill the cat -- or the infant. You can
encourage curiosity in countless other ways without also allowing
your child to endanger himself.
[...]
--
Ken
James E. Prescott
Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> wrote
in message news:MPG.15da955ed191a28a98971b@news...
> [...]
> First, it is pointless, even counterproductive, to keep
> using an emotionally charged word such as "violence"
> to describe a normal spanking. As I have already made
> clear several times on this thread, I reject the premise
> that a normal spanking is a form of violence.
Right you are, Ken. (And right in the rest of your post as well.)
Violence is just one of several kinds of force. It is the particular kind
that does injury or physical damage to persons or property. Spanking is a
kind of "force," of course, but it clearly is not violence unless the
spanking does the child some physical injury (beyond mere momentary pain),
in which case it is crime.
Normal spanking is perfectly fine if applied (caringly) to a very small
child for the sake of his own well being. It is wrong to ever strike an
older child, however, and the difference does indeed pertain to the "force
vs. reason" issue. But I'm afraid those stubbornly "anti-spanking" are in
fact the ones not comprehending this issue. Force is not wrong or evil in
and of itself: It is only wrong in the context of /reason/ as an
alternative. A very small child does not yet have a mature rational
faculty -- cannot comprehend such a thing, for example, as the dangers of a
busy highway. So force, instead, is the /proper/ way to deal with a very
small child: you /forcefully/ prevent him from playing in the street; it is
not a game or a debate or a negotiation. The parent is responsible for
preventing the child from endangering himself, and that means the parent is
both morally and legally /obligated/ to use force. The force does not have
to be spanking, of course. It might be merely carrying the child away from
the street. But certainly there is nothing wrong with spanking a disobedient
child. It's perfectly fine to do so long as the child is not of the "age of
reason" and so long as the spanking is not cruel or injurious.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Ken Gardner
[...]
> Normal spanking is perfectly fine if applied (caringly) to a very small
> child for the sake of his own well being. It is wrong to ever strike an
> older child, however, and the difference does indeed pertain to the "force
> vs. reason" issue.
Exactly. Well said.
> But I'm afraid those stubbornly "anti-spanking" are in
> fact the ones not comprehending this issue. Force is not wrong or evil in
> and of itself: It is only wrong in the context of /reason/ as an
> alternative. A very small child does not yet have a mature rational
> faculty -- cannot comprehend such a thing, for example, as the dangers of a
> busy highway.
I agree, with the proviso that spanking is not necessarily the best
way to deal even with the very small child to which you refer. It
depends on the particular facts and the particular child. Conversely,
as you mention above, once the child develops that rational faculty,
spanking is no longer appropriate in virtually any circumstance that
I can think of.
My objection to the anti-spankers, in this regard, is their failure
to distinguish children who have developed all or a significant part
of their rational capacity from very small children who have not yet
meaningfully developed this capacity. You cannot treat, say, a two
year old who has barely learned a few words as if he were an adult
capable of normal rational judgment.
Likewise, you cannot treat every parent who spanks his child as if he
was a criminal or statist. That's my other main objection. It simply
isn't true, nor can it be proven to be true.
> So force, instead, is the /proper/ way to deal with a very
> small child: you /forcefully/ prevent him from playing in the street; it is
> not a game or a debate or a negotiation. The parent is responsible for
> preventing the child from endangering himself, and that means the parent is
> both morally and legally /obligated/ to use force. The force does not have
> to be spanking, of course. It might be merely carrying the child away from
> the street. But certainly there is nothing wrong with spanking a disobedient
> child. It's perfectly fine to do so long as the child is not of the "age of
> reason" and so long as the spanking is not cruel or injurious.
Makes perfect sense to me.
--
Ken
Jemma
children without violence. The methodology I've used has taught two
boys to understand extreme situations fully without resorting to
violence.
When the situation arose, such as your example of almost stepping into
traffic, I used a frightened tone of voice to explain the danger
inherent in the act that almost occurred. "Taylor, that was VERY
dangerous! You might've been hurt or killed stepping into traffic
like that. It really frightens me to think of what could've happened.
I love you too much to lose you."
No violence, red mark, or abuse is necessary to effect a complete
comprehension of the event. There is no place for violence. I'm
still scarred inside from abuse that occurred thirty-plus years ago,
and though I "lost it" a couple of times (for which I'm eternally
sorry) and open hand spanked my first son, I learned and never
repeated the error.
Violence teaches fear, and children never learn and achieve to the
highest level of which they are capable using fear as the teacher
through violence. They learn that way, sure, but what are they
learning, and at what cost? "Screw your self esteem kid, I just don't
want you to get hit by a bus..." "I don't want you to get hit by that
car, but I don't care about your being hit by me"....
-Jem
Dave O'Hearn
> PascaL says...
> > I'd argue that spanking is too *artificial* a form of
> > error-correction, by virtue of being too indirectly related and,
> > often, distant (time-wise) from the act (of drinking the draino).
>
> This argument is debatable at best, wishful thinking on your part at
> worst. I don't believe that one can make truthful sweeping
> generalizations of this kind on this subject.
I'm not sure about the "indirectly related" part, but there is a lot
of evidence from dog trainers that punishment after the fact doesn't
result in learning. If your dog digs up your garden and you take him
back there and hit him on the nose, he doesn't get it. Now, dogs are
less intelligent than most children, especially children that can form
sentences. But I would suspect that younger children share the
essential characteristic here, the lack of any real long-term memory.
And if the child could remember, it would be worse, not better. He
could than understand that he is only punished when caught, and that
lying can help avoid it.
I do agree with the majority of your response to PascaL, though. His
argument is not very rational. He has yet to offer an explanation of
the causal connection between spanking and the child learning that
"violence is practical". It's extremely unlikely that the mind even
allows such a connection. Spanking is something that happens to the
child, while violence is a method he would be using to attain goals.
It takes a great deal of abstraction to relate those two things. A
more plausible negative consequence of spanking would be an excessive
and irrational fear of disapproval.
On the other hand, PascaL has addressed the other half of my
utilitarian argument for spanking. It doesn't just have to be
beneficial; it has to be the best method to serve the goal. I would be
extraordinarily surprised to discover that spanking is superior to
creating a safe environment for the child, or that spanking does a
better job of teaching morality than setting a positive example and
earning the child's respect. So I don't think it's the best of ideas,
although I've said already that it's far from the most important
decision in parenting.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> > > I'd argue that spanking is too *artificial* a form of
> > > error-correction, by virtue of being too indirectly related and,
> > > often, distant (time-wise) from the act (of drinking the draino).
> > This argument is debatable at best, wishful thinking on your part at
> > worst. I don't believe that one can make truthful sweeping
> > generalizations of this kind on this subject.
> I'm not sure about the "indirectly related" part, but there is a lot
> of evidence from dog trainers that punishment after the fact doesn't
> result in learning.
Perhaps, but so what. Dogs aren't humans. They don't learn in the
same way that human beings learn. More to follow below.
> If your dog digs up your garden and you take him
> back there and hit him on the nose, he doesn't get it.
Not so. I owned a dog for 18 years. She understood perfectly what she
could and could not do as a result of "punishment," and she acted
accordingly (with one exception). Then again, as dogs go she was
extremely bright. <G>
The one exception was that she had this insane desire to fight
skunks. Even her intense hatred of the smell (it was, well, very
bad), and the resulting baths with some very nasty industrial
strength dog shampoo, never entirely cured her of this one bad habit.
That was lots of fun -- fighting an almost 70 pound wet dog who hated
baths and who had been skunked. <G>
To be sure, I have also been around plenty of dogs that fit your
description (we all know the type, I think), although I wouldn't want
to own one.
> Now, dogs are less intelligent than most children, especially children
> that can form sentences. But I would suspect that younger children share the
> essential characteristic here, the lack of any real long-term memory.
I would suspect the exact opposite about human beings, including
children.
> And if the child could remember, it would be worse, not better. He
> could than understand that he is only punished when caught, and that
> lying can help avoid it.
Not necessarily. As I told Pascal, this type of argument appears to
be a form of overgeneralizing. I don't think that anyone can say
that this statement truthfully describes the universal reaction of
children to spanking. I'm not denying, of course, that it can be
true in some cases. I would think that there should be evidence that
either supports or disproves this point in all or the clear majority
of cases. But I don't know one way or the other.
My real dog in the fight here (but not a fight with a skunked dog) is
not the merits of spanking, but the (epistemological) approach that
Pascal has chosen to take in support of his arguments against
spanking. I think it is a flawed approach, and I have attempted to
explain why. He can agree or disagree with me -- that's up to him.
I think it is possible for him to recast his arguments and make them
much more persuasive (if the evidence supports them, of course).
> I do agree with the majority of your response to PascaL, though. His
> argument is not very rational.
His mind is certainly in the right place, and perhaps I'm coming off
a little harsh towards him (not intentionally). But having said
that, I agree.
> He has yet to offer an explanation of
> the causal connection between spanking and the child learning that
> "violence is practical". It's extremely unlikely that the mind even
> allows such a connection. Spanking is something that happens to the
> child, while violence is a method he would be using to attain goals.
> It takes a great deal of abstraction to relate those two things. A
> more plausible negative consequence of spanking would be an excessive
> and irrational fear of disapproval.
Perhaps. There should be facts that either tend to prove or tend to
disprove the existence of this negative consequence in all or most
cases of spanking. That's the approach that I would much prefer
people to take on this issue instead of blurting out without evidence
that spanking is always bad (or necessarily bad) or, for that matter,
vice versa.
> On the other hand, PascaL has addressed the other half of my
> utilitarian argument for spanking. It doesn't just have to be
> beneficial; it has to be the best method to serve the goal.
Which again raises factual disputes about what is the best method in
a given situation.
> I would be extraordinarily surprised to discover that spanking is
> superior to creating a safe environment for the child,
I tend to agree, but I don't see why these two cannot complement each
other under the right circumstances.
> or that spanking does a better job of teaching morality than
> setting a positive example and earning the child's respect.
Ditto my previous comment.
> So I don't think it's the best of ideas,
> although I've said already that it's far from the most important
> decision in parenting.
Here, I fully agree regardless of the ultimate merits of spanking.
--
Ken
Dave O'Hearn
> > And if the child could remember, it would be worse, not better. He
> > could than understand that he is only punished when caught, and that
> > lying can help avoid it.
>
> Not necessarily. As I told Pascal, this type of argument appears to
> be a form of overgeneralizing. I don't think that anyone can say
> that this statement truthfully describes the universal reaction of
> children to spanking. I'm not denying, of course, that it can be
> true in some cases. I would think that there should be evidence that
> either supports or disproves this point in all or the clear majority
> of cases. But I don't know one way or the other.
Mainly, I was offering it as evidence that there are things better
than spanking, not that spanking is wrong. And I see no reason that
spanking would be mutually exclusive with these better methods. But in
general, I am wary of any claim that spanking a child after the fact
is beneficial. I think the burden of proof is on the other side, as it
isn't clear that the child can make the connection.
> > He has yet to offer an explanation of
> > the causal connection between spanking and the child learning that
> > "violence is practical". It's extremely unlikely that the mind even
> > allows such a connection. Spanking is something that happens to the
> > child, while violence is a method he would be using to attain goals.
> > It takes a great deal of abstraction to relate those two things. A
> > more plausible negative consequence of spanking would be an excessive
> > and irrational fear of disapproval.
>
> Perhaps. There should be facts that either tend to prove or tend to
> disprove the existence of this negative consequence in all or most
> cases of spanking. That's the approach that I would much prefer
> people to take on this issue instead of blurting out without evidence
> that spanking is always bad (or necessarily bad) or, for that matter,
> vice versa.
Yes, I wasn't saying that my plausible negative consequence was
necessarily true, simply that it was more plausible than the claim
that spanking teaches that violence is practical. I am very dubious of
claims that spanking has any effects on a child's moral outlook. It
might effect his sense-of-life, or maybe it won't. But morality is an
awfully complicated thing to be influenced by something so simple.
Also, I haven't yet seen a clear list of the various benefits spanking
is supposed to have for the child. The majority of the negative
effects in this thread have been poorly defined, if not simply silly.
But where is the other side? Is spanking supposed merely to keep the
child from doing dangerous things, until he can know better? Or is it
also useful as punishment for misbehavior on a social level, such as
stealing, making too much noise, dialing long distance phone numbers,
etc?
--
Dave O'Hearn
Gsnyquist
is supposed to have for the child >>
<< But where is the other side? Is spanking supposed merely to keep the
child from doing dangerous things, until he can know better? >>
This seems to be precisely the problem: it is nearly impossible to gather any
evidence on the question beyond merely anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal
evidence cannot be regarded as scientific. I would guess that the safest
course is to try to discipline children with other methods and only use
spanking as a last resort, when nothing else will work.
Ken Gardner
[...]
> Also, I haven't yet seen a clear list of the various benefits spanking
> is supposed to have for the child. The majority of the negative
> effects in this thread have been poorly defined, if not simply silly.
> But where is the other side? Is spanking supposed merely to keep the
> child from doing dangerous things, until he can know better? Or is it
> also useful as punishment for misbehavior on a social level, such as
> stealing, making too much noise, dialing long distance phone numbers,
> etc?
It's much easier for me to attack some of the anti-spanking arguments
we've seen on this thread than to offer a defense of the practice.
The only benefit I can name -- arguably -- is that the child learns
to associate bad behavior with pain before he is capable of grasping
the badness of the behavior on a conceptual level. And this
association occurs, if at all, only in some cases (how many I don't
know). And even in the cases in which it occurs, it probably helps
regulate the child's behavior in only some of THOSE cases.
--
Ken
PascaL
attempt to appeal to the reader's feelings or emotions - and I resent
the implication that this is the reason I use the word.
Violence, according the the New Shorter Oxford, is: "the excercise of
physical force so as to cause injury or damage to a person, property,
etc."
Frankly, I'm not so much concerned with the <i>physical</i>, so much
as the <i>phsychological</i> injury and/or damage caused by spanking
(even if only potential damage).
An author of a parenting book that I just borrowed from my aunt offers
a significant number of potential side effects of spanking which I
found very interesting (and this list is far from comprehensive of the
vast number of potential, and even commonly observed, side effects):
<i>
- Spanking breeds hostility and anger. No one feels good about being
hit.
- Spanking does not stop the unwanted behavior. Children are often
tempted to repeat the behavior, out of spite, to see if they can get
away with it.
- Spanking creates new problems. It introduces anger to the already
existing problem.
- Spanking can lead to child abuse. Obviously, if childern were never
hit, our problem of physical child abuse would be virtually
eliminated.
- Spanking can lead to neurotic behavior. Certain children become so
upset and anxious that they develop defense mechanisms which prevent
them from functioning normally.
- Spanking teaches that might makes right. Children learn that the way
to solve problems is through violence.
- Spanking is a violation of the child's right. If the same injuries
were inflicted upon an adult, the aggressor could be charged with
assult and battery.
- spanking fails to teach appropriate behavior. The emphasis is on
what NOT to do, rather than on what to do.
- Spanking interrupts the learning process. Children have to be in a
receptive state of mind to learn. A child who has just been spanked is
not in a receptive mood.
- Spanking leads to fear and avoidance. We even say to children "Don't
let me ever catch you doing that again." The child says to himself
"All right, I'll make sure that you don't catch me next time."
- Spanking makes the child want to strike or hit back. This is a
natural, normal instinct - a defense mechanism with which we are born.
- Spanking blocks communication. We need to be in the business of
building communication with children, not destroying it.
- "Not spanking" forces one to find alternatives to this form of
discipline. It challenges us to use our minds to accomplish our goal:
helping the child understand that the behavior is inappropriate and
unacceptable.
- As the child grows older, the spanking must become more severe to be
effective. A child of twelve will laugh if you swat him on the rear.
- The "spanker" becomes a model for aggression. The child will imitate
this aggressive behavior on the next victim: neighbor, child, sibling
or dog.
- The spanking doesn't stop when the lesson is learned, it stops when
the spankER is tired. The cessation of the act has nothing to do with
the determination of the spankee to change his ways.
- If more than one child is involved, the innocent one may be spanked.
Most of us remember with bitterness some time in our childhood when we
took the rap for someone else who got off "scot free".
- The child may "opt" to take a spanking and risk getting caught if
his only reason for behaving is to escape punishment.
- Spanking does not lead to inner control. Children who rely on
external controls to stop them grow up to be undisciplined, sneaky,
unruly, unreliable, and defiant.
</i>
She concludes the list with a very good, sociological comment:
<i>"In a society that is becoming increasingly violent, it seems
important that we try to find alternative, non-violent ways to solve
our problems with children and to help them develop self-control
withou resorting to external force of physical punishment."</i>
... and to comment directly on some opinions expressed since my last
post...
"I would guess that the safest course is to try to discipline children
with other methods and only use spanking as a last resort, when
nothing else will work."
I fully agree with looking at alternative methods, but I don't agree
with treating a child like you would a Coke machine "when nothing else
will work." Keep in mind, also, that your statement implies a
limitation of the parent's abilities in finding alternatives, not a
limitation of possible alternatives altogether. To clarify, I mean
that instead of defaulting to spanking, why not default to admitting a
limitation in the knowledge and skillfull application of alternatives
and return to tbe books?
PascaL
encountered recently:
With the help of two other adults, I was responsible for the care of 8
children (ages 18months to 4 years) in a small gymnasium. One 3 year
old boy bit a small 18month old girl (entirely without provocation)
and consequently made her very upset.
This boy is old enough to speak clearly and understand when spoken to.
Why should I/we have done?
Dave O'Hearn
Social interactions are too complicated to be effected so neatly as,
"When I steal or hit others, it hurts, so it must be wrong." I don't
see what possible benefit spanking could have. In the short-term, it
might make him behave better. But making him do something boring, such
as sitting in a corner, is just as much torture for a small child, if
not more. And it has the causal connection that mistreating others
results in social rejection, which is a real moral lesson.
Now, it is remotely possible that the child can make the connection,
"Gee, I hit this girl for no reason; just wanted to see what would
happen. And she couldn't hit me back because I was bigger. But then
the bigger people came and hit me, so ..." I do not think any such
thing is likely, if you were trying to pose it as plausible. Children
go through phases so quickly that you just can't say. But I also don't
think it's any issue at all, as spanking is never going to teach a
child proper social behavior. Even a behaviorist psychologist would
agree. Physical punishment only works for very simple lessons, like "X
object will harm me," or "X person is dangerous; I will obey him."
--
Dave O'Hearn
Dave O'Hearn
> - spanking fails to teach appropriate behavior. The emphasis is on
> what NOT to do, rather than on what to do.
This is the sole point I agree with, and I think you harm your
argument by making it only one point in a list. The only purpose
spanking can have is to help the child grow up properly. If a parent
thinks it works, they will risk the potential harm for this benefit,
no matter how many negative consequences you postulate. In contrast to
your posts here, many parents postulate a string of horrid things that
happen to children who *aren't* spanked. It is better to address the
central issue with evidence: How is spanking supposed to teach
appropriate behavior? And does it really do this? If your position is
correct, and you can defend with evidence, this is the only argument
with the potential to convince parents not to spank. Arguing by
non-essentials will get you no where, as there is an equal pile of
non-essentials on the other side.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> It is better to address the central issue with evidence: How
> is spanking supposed to teach appropriate behavior? And does
> it really do this?
Words to live by. The reason I didn't respond to his parade of
horribles is that for every single item he mentioned, I could easily
think up exceptions, counterexamples, etc., any one of which would be
sufficient to refute each of these universal assertions.
I think Pascal is still missing the thrust of my objections to his
views, which pertain more to methodology than substance. He is also
taking my objections a little too personally for my taste.
--
Ken
PascaL
598973b@news>...
> Dave O'Hearn says...
>
> > It is better to address the central issue with evidence: How
> > is spanking supposed to teach appropriate behavior? And does
> > it really do this?
I agree. That said, I'd be interested in Ken giving us a good answer
to this, since he's on the "spanking is ok" side (or, at least,
playing the devil's advocate).
> Words to live by. The reason I didn't respond to his parade of
> horribles is that for every single item he mentioned, I could easily
> think up exceptions, counterexamples, etc., any one of which would be
> sufficient to refute each of these universal assertions.
Universal assertions? Perhaps I failed to adequately emphasize
"potential side effects". It's up to you to weigh the possible
benefits and detriments resulting from spanking. The sole purpose of
the list was to suggest a wide variety of possible detriments in order
to emphasize the risks of spanking.
> I think Pascal is still missing the thrust of my objections to his
> views, which pertain more to methodology than substance. He is also
> taking my objections a little too personally for my taste.
"Too personally for your taste"? I assume you're refering to my
response to your implication that I use the term "violence" as an
appeal to emotions rather than reason. I was expecting to read your
defense in regards to the term, not your opinion on how personally I
take your criticisms (which, incedently, I really do value and
appreciate - if that is not obvious, already, from the frequency of my
replies).
Is this issue a case where the pro-spanker needs to prove the benefit
of spanking, vs. the anti-spanker to prove that it does not have any
benefit?
I agree about arguing non-essentials. So, what is essential here?
I believe the essential to be that spanking IS a form of violence and
a clear, and obvious, example of using brute force to solve problems.
Ted
PascaL <ut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I agree about arguing non-essentials. So, what is essential here?
>
>I believe the essential to be that spanking IS a form of violence and
>a clear, and obvious, example of using brute force to solve problems.
The issue is just plain force. If spanking is brute force, grounding is a
restraining force. Unless a child's will should be considered equal to the
parent's, the child will be controlled by the parents one way or the other.
Force is inevitable - and natural in this case.
These arguments imply that unless someone is raised in the most auspicious
of environments, for the rest of their life, they will not be capable of
the use of their faculty of reason, which happens to be common to our species.
There has never been one human being who grew up in a perfect home. Ay Dios
mios.
Ted
Dave O'Hearn
> Dave O'Hearn says...
> > It is better to address the central issue with evidence: How
> > is spanking supposed to teach appropriate behavior? And does
> > it really do this?
>
> I agree. That said, I'd be interested in Ken giving us a good answer
> to this, since he's on the "spanking is ok" side (or, at least,
> playing the devil's advocate).
> I agree about arguing non-essentials. So, what is essential here?
>
> I believe the essential to be that spanking IS a form of violence and
> a clear, and obvious, example of using brute force to solve problems.
Well, brute force is a great way of solving some problems, such as
self-defense. It helps if the use of retaliatory force is codified in
law, to reduce errors, but it's still the same thing. If force is the
only thing that works, you have to use it. Fortunately, it's very easy
to avoid that situation; just don't initiate force and no one will
ever be compelled to use it against you.
But all of that assumes rational adults who have the responsibility to
bear the consequences of their own actions. The same line of reasoning
would let you sit idly by and watch your child get hurt or killed,
fearing to interfear with his liberty. Whether you take the
hypothetical draino away from the child, punish him by sending him to
his room, or spank him for trying to drink it, you're still
interfearing with his liberty. The concept just doesn't apply to
children. If it applied essentially, you would have no parenting to do
at all.
I think the most plausible argument against spanking is that it's
inferior to other methods and encourages laziness on the part of the
parent. Also, there are many cases where I just can't see that it does
what it's supposed to do. I do not know of any studies on children,
and I would be skeptical of them, as they might be influenced by the
liberal crap in academia. But punishment fails as a method of teaching
both on animals and on adults, and the evidence there is abundant; the
animal studies are rigorous, and prisons have a miserable success rate
at correction. Or you could even drag up some unsavory literature
about torture; slave masters knew that slaves "broken" by torture were
inferior to other slaves.
Still, I cannot make the general statement that spanking is never the
right thing to do. Maybe you get some kid who only respects brute
force and wants to be punished when he misbehaves, so he can respect
you and see that there's some order in the world. It sounds weird, but
people can be weird; I know lots of weird people. Most of them find
some way to be civil.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
[...]
> I think the most plausible argument against spanking is that it's
> inferior to other methods and encourages laziness on the part of the
> parent.
I agree that this type of argument is, as a matter of methodology, by
far the best type of argument to make against spanking.
> Also, there are many cases where I just can't see that it does
> what it's supposed to do. I do not know of any studies on children,
> and I would be skeptical of them, as they might be influenced by the
> liberal crap in academia.
Me too.
> But punishment fails as a method of teaching
> both on animals and on adults, and the evidence there is abundant; the
> animal studies are rigorous, and prisons have a miserable success rate
> at correction.
I have two problems with this comment. First, I don't think that you
can learn anything about the effect of punishment on human beings
from studying animals other than human beings. Second, your comment
on the recidivism rate attempts to prove too much. It may well be the
case that punishment can be effective in some cases, but imprisonment
(or, even more narrowly, certain methods and practices of
imprisonment, which themselves may be erroneous or ineffective when
compared to other methods and practices of imprisonment) as a method
of punishment is not as effective as other methods.
> Or you could even drag up some unsavory literature
> about torture; slave masters knew that slaves "broken" by torture were
> inferior to other slaves.
Which would be apples and oranges. The inquiry should be limited to
the effect of normal spankings, not serious child abuse that would be
equivalent to torture or other forms of cruel and unusual punishment.
> Still, I cannot make the general statement that spanking is never the
> right thing to do.
Which is exactly where I am as well, as against the position that
spanking is always bad.
[...]
--
Ken
PascaL
> the effect of normal spankings, not serious child abuse that would be
> equivalent to torture or other forms of cruel and unusual punishment.
You need to define what a "normal" spanking is, and also, what constitutes
child abuse.
> > Still, I cannot make the general statement that spanking is never the
> > right thing to do.
>
> Which is exactly where I am as well, as against the position that
> spanking is always bad.
Even if I'm inconsistent with rationality in that holding that "spanking is
always wrong", I'd rather take the chance on this side, than on the other.
Ken Gardner
> > Which would be apples and oranges. The inquiry should be limited to
> > the effect of normal spankings, not serious child abuse that would be
> > equivalent to torture or other forms of cruel and unusual punishment.
> You need to define what a "normal" spanking is, and also, what constitutes
> child abuse.
I would say that a normal spanking inflicts momentary pain, but
nothing else (e.g. no bruises, abrasions, etc.).
> Even if I'm inconsistent with rationality in that holding that "spanking is
> always wrong", I'd rather take the chance on this side, than on the other.
But what if it could be proven, with evidence, that the effects of
not spanking are worse than the effects of spanking? In other words,
someone on the other side of this debate could just as easily say
that he would rather err on the side of spanking.
I think that the best position to take is to be open to arguments on
both sides and take the side that you think is better supported by
the evidence -- and always to keep in mind the difference between the
evidence, on the one hand, and your opinions, biases, and preferences
on the other hand.
--
Ken
Dave O'Hearn
> I have two problems with this comment. First, I don't think that you
> can learn anything about the effect of punishment on human beings
> from studying animals other than human beings.
Well, it fails on adults and animals; I thought that was sufficient to
cast doubt that it was good for children. I would prefer to have
studies based on children, but I don't know of any. Now, I still do
not think spanking is always wrong. My main position hasn't changed
since I started posting in the thread, and that's simply that spanking
is a poor choice for the primary method of teaching things to
children. Also, I have little further to comment on the matter, other
than to cast doubts as to the utility of punishment, as it is very
unclear what benefits spanking is supposed to have. The only argument
I've ever heard for it is, "Spare the rod and spoil the child," and
only on television shows.
> Second, your comment
> on the recidivism rate attempts to prove too much. It may well be the
> case that punishment can be effective in some cases, but imprisonment
> (or, even more narrowly, certain methods and practices of
> imprisonment, which themselves may be erroneous or ineffective when
> compared to other methods and practices of imprisonment) as a method
> of punishment is not as effective as other methods.
That's all I wanted to say. If it has a miserable success rate, it is
not something worth trying, at least not until other things have been
tried first.
--
Dave O'Hearn
PascaL
> nothing else (e.g. no bruises, abrasions, etc.).
How much pain is too little or too much?
How long is "momentary"?
Why no bruises or abrasions? Does leaving a physical mark make it immoral,
but since you can't easily see the mental mark, it is not relevant?
> > Even if I'm inconsistent with rationality in that holding that "spanking
is
> > always wrong", I'd rather take the chance on this side, than on the
other.
>
> But what if it could be proven, with evidence, that the effects of
> not spanking are worse than the effects of spanking? In other words,
> someone on the other side of this debate could just as easily say
> that he would rather err on the side of spanking.
Prove it and I will change my stance. Until then, I won't spank. As one who
adheres to Objectivist ethics (which is the moral and ethical context of
this discussion), one does not take action unless he is certain that it is
moral. If one is certain that it is moral, then he must have reason to
believe it is moral and, ideally, will be able to explain and justify his
actions to others - if need be. (I do grant, however, the possibility that
one may know something is moral, but not be able to adequately explain it).
So, is not the onus of justification on he who commits the act of spanking
vs. he who questions its morality?
> I think that the best position to take is to be open to arguments on
> both sides and take the side that you think is better supported by
> the evidence -- and always to keep in mind the difference between the
> evidence, on the one hand, and your opinions, biases, and preferences
> on the other hand.
Why the dichotomy between opinions, biases, preferences, and evidence? Are
the former not products of the latter?
I'm more inclined to believe that my opinions, biases and preferences are
products of my knowledge (and, consequently, evidence - be it directly
witnessed, or understood by less direct and first-hand means). Whether my
arguments or assertions are opinions, preferences or biases, is inessential
to their validity, correct?
As you can see, it really doesn't matter to me whether you personally
believe spanking is moral or not, Nor does it matter to me what you consider
your arguments - be they opinions, biases or preferences. I don't criticize
them in that context, and it is not relevant to me if you think the position
I hold is 'just my opinion' divorced from my ability to think and reason.
However, I will assure you that I have studied enough literature, observed
enough parent-child relationships, and experienced first-hand the effects of
spanking, that I am convinced that it is inconsistent with objectivist
ethics (by virtue of being an example of the use of violence to solve
problems that can, though perhaps not easily, be solved through more
reasonable and 'human' means).
Lastly...
Has anyone asserted any evidence that spanking is an effective form of
education or discipline? I see many "buts, ifs and 'I could just as easily
argue the opposite'", but none carry with them any specific arguments.
I believe we're headed in the right direction by defining our concepts,
firstly.
We need to define "spanking" and compare it to "violence". We then need to
consider whether it is possible that there can exist any specific context in
which the act of spanking can be reasonably and morally justified and
efficacious in its purpose (whether that be education, discipline,
protection, etc.)
George Dance
of anecdotal evidence, from *Philosophy through the Ages* by Jan Price
(Wadsworth 2000):
" Immanuel Kant (1734-1804) was born, raised, lived, and died in the
town of Koigsberg in East Prussia (now part of western Russia). His
parents belonged to the Lutheran Pietist movement and raised him with
strict moral standards. His mother was a stern Puritan who insisted
on a rigorous ritualism, and his fateher made leather straps -- and
used them regularly on his eleven children. As an adult, Kant
criticized his early training and stayed away from church, but he
remained a deeply spiritual man." (228)
It is reasonable to infer that this early training heavily influenced
Kant's ethics: his identification of morality solely with duty, his
denial that self-interested actions had any moral worth -- indeed his
denial that the morality of actions depended on their consequences, ie
on their worth to anyone -- and his insistence (despite his
non-participation in the church) that morality led directly to
religion.
Dave O'Hearn
> " Immanuel Kant (1734-1804) was born, raised, lived, and died in the
> town of Koigsberg in East Prussia (now part of western Russia). His
> parents belonged to the Lutheran Pietist movement and raised him with
> strict moral standards. His mother was a stern Puritan who insisted
> on a rigorous ritualism, and his fateher made leather straps -- and
> used them regularly on his eleven children. As an adult, Kant
> criticized his early training and stayed away from church, but he
> remained a deeply spiritual man." (228)
Fascinating! Anybody want to see what happens if we beat a child with
leather straps *and* read him Kant at bed time? For added measure,
maybe we should translate Kant to Chinese, then to Russian, then to
Latin, before we finally put him into English.
> It is reasonable to infer that this early training heavily influenced
> Kant's ethics: his identification of morality solely with duty, his
> denial that self-interested actions had any moral worth -- indeed his
> denial that the morality of actions depended on their consequences, ie
> on their worth to anyone -- and his insistence (despite his
> non-participation in the church) that morality led directly to
> religion.
While I find this plausible intuitively, I really wish I had evidence.
That said, I don't think anyone here was arguing that severe beatings
with leather straps were going to do anything good for a child. At
least I hope not. I'm not surprised to hear that some form of
Lutherianism was involved, but we shouldn't be too hard on Martin
Luther. Apparently, he was quite a revolutary for his time, telling
men not to beat their wives and children *too much*. However, he did
think that regular beatings were necessary to maintain the cosmic
order of the household and the man's place as God's representative.
That is the only "theory" of spanking that I hold to be absurd on its
face. Whether or not it does what it claims to do, it literally says
that the purpose of spanking is to get children (and wives) to follow
a deontological ethics, because it isn't in human nature to do so
otherwise. Even in the "best" case, assuming this is true, it's
worthless; deontology is crap.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Robert J. Kolker
Dave O'Hearn wrote:
> Luther. Apparently, he was quite a revolutary for his time, telling
> men not to beat their wives and children *too much*. However, he did
> think that regular beatings were necessary to maintain the cosmic
> order of the household and the man's place as God's representative.
He was too busy telling his people to burn Jews alive to have
any stand on beating wives and children. Luethers literally
cursed the Jews with his dying breath.
Luether also was the first Christian to suggest that Canon
Kopernik should be burned for his heliocentric theory.
Bob Kolker
Pinhead
you with a maximum of dedication and zeal. Witholding food until the
lawn gets mowed can still encourage procrastination. A beating
administered if the lawn is not perfectly mowed at noon will assure
that it gets done and done right. There is no substitutue for a
beating if kid comes home late. (What else are you gonna do--put him
in time-out? He can't do his afternnon chores if you do that!) In
addition, random beatings for no particular reason will have the
effect of making the child want to please you without even having to
say anything. He will just come to you and ask what you want!
Dave O'Hearn
> He was too busy telling his people to burn Jews alive to have
> any stand on beating wives and children. Luethers literally
> cursed the Jews with his dying breath.
While I'm not surprised to find out this is true given other things
the man wrote, he did find some time somewhere to talk about the
proper Protestant family and the beating of wives and children, as I
read it myself. As to burning Jews alive, the number of Jews in a
given area was inversely proportionate to the number of "witches"
burned. Apparently, when Christians had Jews around, they burned them.
When they couldn't find any, they substituted witches. There is a
fascinating essay on this, and I wish I could remember the author and
general period. It described witches as the "internal enemy" and Jews
as the "external enemy". This may be the oldest existing tretise on
the theory of scapegoating and propaganda.
The scapegoating waxed and waned in variors periods, but in general
the Church could not maintain its hold without giving people enemies
to hate. This is somewhat similar to how modern liberals can't get any
legislation passed without claiming there's one social emergency or
another.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Kent
<dave...@pobox.com> wrote:
> There is a
>fascinating essay on this, and I wish I could remember the author and
>general period. It described witches as the "internal enemy" and Jews
>as the "external enemy". This may be the oldest existing tretise on
>the theory of scapegoating and propaganda.
Rung a bell in my noggin - that may be: Thomas of Monmouth: The Life
and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, 1173, an essay distributed
widely that furthered the prejudice. Here's a blurb from a website
that has the essay:
"Medieval Christians (and some modern ones, too) believed that
Christian children were seized and tortured to death by the Jews
during the Passover season. This myth appears in a complete form for
the first time in The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, a
Latin work written about 1173 by Thomas of Monmouth, a contemporary of
the events which he relates. The story of the ritual murder of the boy
William in 1144 is virtually the first of a long series of such
accusations, a series that has not yet come to an end. The
significance of these accusations is that by such descriptions of the
Jew they have served throughout the ages to create an anti-Jewish
mentality."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1173williamnorwich.html
There are other websites on this 'theme' but you want to take a shower
after visiting some of them<g>.
Kent
Larry Kulp
punishment is aggression, i.e., it is a violation of the rights of the
child, and, moreover, that the child's rights do not differ from those of
other human beings, specifically, those of adults.
That assumption is pure horse puckey.
A human being is entitled to rights because he naturally requires them for
efficacious existence. The non-aggression principle is derived from man's
nature as a free and RATIONAL being. But anyone who has raised children
does not need to be told that children are fundamentally NOT capable of full
rationality. As they grow older, with proper nurturing, they eventually do
become capable of full rationality--but until they do, their nature does not
require the poltical rights which adults require, and, therefore, they are
not entitled to such rights.
By giving these potential human beings the full (but fictional) status of
rational adults, we are presented with the ludicrous picture of barbaric
children running the household (they ARE barbarians until they learn about
empathy and social nicetes), adults being subjected to all sorts of violence
with no recourse (they DO lie, cheat, and destroy your things), and adults
anxiously hoping that thei children might do the right or safe thing after
appealing to their reason (something which the kids don't have).
But I love'em anyway. Please do not construe the foregoing as an argument
in favor of spanking, etc., or that I spanked my kids as a rule. I simply
mean to say that I do not see corporal punishment, per se, as being immoral.
It is altogether a different question as to whether it is an effective
means, under any circumstances, to correct a child. I would venture a guess
that it might indeed sometimes optimally effective, such as in the example
of a child who obstinantly walks out into traffic despite repeated warnings
about the danger.
Sometimes, the kids "just don't get it" any other way--until it's too late.
KULP
PascaL
"Larry Kulp" <lk...@cdeaner.com> wrote in message
news:tombe0...@corp.supernews.com...
> There is an unspoken assumption throughout this thread that corporal
> punishment is aggression, i.e., it is a violation of the rights of the
> child, and, moreover, that the child's rights do not differ from those of
> other human beings, specifically, those of adults.
According to the definition of violence provided by the Oxford New Shorter,
it is my interpretation that the term is a valid, and fundamental,
description of spanking. Spanking, as a concept is merely an extension of
the concept of violence, adding motivation (discipline) and purpose
(correction?) to the definition.
From having started and fully followed this thread, I've noted that
definitions (not surprisingly) are absolutely essential to this discussion.
Particularly, the definitions of the following concepts:
Child - (the concept "child" could denote a human being of any youthfull age
and is too broad for a discussion on spanking)
Spanking - (wooden spoon? hand? belt? ... what exactly constitutes
"spanking"?)
Violence
Discipline
I'd venture more than a guess and condemn the parent right out. A child for
whom verbal admonishments (ie. "repeated warnings") are inefective and so
obviously does not understand the danger of playing near traffic, should
NEVER be allowed anywhere near it.
It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child's safety, at
all times, until such time as the child is mature and (self)disciplined
enough to be responsible for his own safety.
I encourage you to reconsider guessing about the value of spanking and
discount it as a valid option until you can come up with an reasonable
situation where it is, indeed, the best option.
Personally, I've taken the position that spanking = immoral until proven
otherwise.
>
> Sometimes, the kids "just don't get it" any other way--until it's too
late.
>
I'd argue that it's the parents that just don't know any other way, and
personally, I believe it more responsible and reasonable to criticize the
parents before the child - always.
PascaL
George Dance
news:tombe0...@corp.supernews.com...
> There is an unspoken assumption throughout this thread that corporal
> punishment is aggression, i.e.,
Then let it be stated as an explicit premise: using physical force
against a person except by that person's consent, or by just rules of
proportional retaliation, is aggression.
> it is a violation of the rights of the child,
Unless either of the exceptions apply, yes.
> and, moreover, that the child's rights do not differ from those of
> other human beings, specifically, those of adults.
Why should they?
> > That assumption is pure horse puckey.
Hardly a refutation.
> > A human being is entitled to rights because he naturally requires them for
> > efficacious existence.
So if a benevolent government provides its citizens with all the means
of efficacious existence, they are entitled to no rights against it?
You sound like a socialist.
> The non-aggression principle is derived from man's
> nature as a free and RATIONAL being. But anyone who has raised children
> does not need to be told that children are fundamentally NOT capable of
> full rationality.
As a parent, I have to object to this "horse puckey." My child was
capable of understanding concepts, grasping the rules of language,
acting purposefully, and all the other components of rationality, from
the time she began to walk and talk. What she was, was ignorant of a
lot of knowledge. Knowledge, not 'full rationality' (whatever that
means) was the only factor making her thinking different from mine.
> As they grow older, with proper nurturing, they eventually do
> become capable of full rationality--but until they do, their nature does
> not require the poltical rights which adults require, and, therefore, the
> y are
> not entitled to such rights.
So if a benevolent parent provides his children with all the means of
efficacious existence, they are entitled to no rights against him?
> > By giving these potential human beings the full (but fictional) status of
> > rational adults, we are presented with the ludicrous picture of barbaric
> > children running the household (they ARE barbarians until they learn about
> > empathy and social nicetes), adults being subjected to all sorts of
> > violence
> > with no recourse (they DO lie, cheat, and destroy your things), and adults
> > anxiously hoping that their children might do the right or safe thing after
> > appealing to their reason (something which the kids don't have).
Imagine an adult who was in your home, under your care, yet suffering
from total amnesia - he knew absolutely nothing about benevolence,
social niceties, property rights, honesty, self-discipline, or even
simple physical facts such as, "If you stick a metal object into a
live outlet, you could die." Would you try to teach those things to
him, and take precautions so that he didn't come to harm; or would you
simply strip and whip him every time he did something you didn't like?
(Due to his total amnesia, you could of course convince him that
stripping and whipping were the way things were normally done; having
no other sources of knowledge, he would probably trust yours, just as
your children trust yours.) Do you think it is possible that you
could teach him without any stripping and whipping?
Once you've decided that question, you can decide if your child is any
different from that adult. The only difference I can see is that it
would be easier to teach a child than an adult; in my experience,
children (especially the young ones) want to be like their parents,
imitate them, trust them, and believe whatever they tell them (none of
which would necessarily be the case for the amnesiac adult).
Your child loves you, trusts you, and wants to make you happy. (So
much for children having to 'learn' human empathy.) If you want him
to be 'fully rational,' why not accept that he wants that for himself
too, and help him to learn how to be that way? As Locke put it, "The
sooner you treat him like a man, the sooner he will be one."
Larry Kulp
PascaL wrote
> I'd venture more than a guess and condemn the parent right out. A child
for
> whom verbal admonishments (ie. "repeated warnings") are inefective and so
> obviously does not understand the danger of playing near traffic, should
> NEVER be allowed anywhere near it.
> It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child's safety, at
> all times, until such time as the child is mature and (self)disciplined
> enough to be responsible for his own safety.
>
> Personally, I've taken the position that spanking = immoral until proven
> otherwise.
>
I would suggest that "not allowing a child anywhere near danger" is also
violent, although not so much as "spanking." Not allowing a child to go
where he wants to go is tantamount to "false imprisonment." In other words,
whether you employ holding the child or placing him in an enclosure,
physical restraint is required. Therefore, if "spanking" violates the
child's rights, the so does "restraint" (i.e., keeping him away from
danger). It similarly fails to "teach" anything substantive about the
danger. But, as you implicitly admit, it is sometimes a necessary tactic.
KULP
Larry Kulp
> >Larry Kulp wrote:
> > A human being is entitled to rights because he naturally requires them
for
> > efficacious existence.
> So if a benevolent government provides its citizens with all the means
> of efficacious existence, they are entitled to no rights against it?
> You sound like a socialist.
No, I'm not. Perhaps I should have said, "A human being HAS rights because
. . . ." Government cannot grant rights, it can only protect them.
(Of course, A-C's would disagree that government can even do this.)
Moreover, the only right derivable from man's nature, and the only right
which lead to efficacy for man as a rational being, is the freedom to
acquire and use one's property (including one's person) nonagressively and
without being subjected to aggression.
> As a parent, I have to object to this "horse puckey." My child was
> capable of understanding concepts, grasping the rules of language,
> acting purposefully, and all the other components of rationality, from
> the time she began to walk and talk. What she was, was ignorant of a
> lot of knowledge. Knowledge, not 'full rationality' (whatever that
> means) was the only factor making her thinking different from mine.
I disagree. Brain research has shown that the brain is not fully developed
at birth, but does not attain maturity until perhaps age 10 or thereabouts.
Until that age, a child's capacity for rationality is, to some degree,
limited.
> Imagine an adult who was in your home, under your care, yet suffering
> from total amnesia - he knew absolutely nothing about benevolence,
> social niceties, property rights, honesty, self-discipline, or even
> simple physical facts such as, "If you stick a metal object into a
> live outlet, you could die." Would you try to teach those things to
> him, and take precautions so that he didn't come to harm; or would you
> simply strip and whip him every time he did something you didn't like?
> (Due to his total amnesia, you could of course convince him that
> stripping and whipping were the way things were normally done; having
> no other sources of knowledge, he would probably trust yours, just as
> your children trust yours.) Do you think it is possible that you
> could teach him without any stripping and whipping?
Of course, because he is merely lacking in knowledge, not in rational
capacity.
> Once you've decided that question, you can decide if your child is any
> different from that adult.
Yes, but my opinion is unchanged. I agree that the distinction should be
based mental capacities, not contents. A child obviously differs, at least
in his first decade, from an adult in his capacity to think rationally.
(There are exceptions, of course. Some children are quite precocious.
Maybe yours were.)
> Your child loves you, trusts you, and wants to make you happy. (So
> much for children having to 'learn' human empathy.)
What you describe has nothing to do with empathy. Empathy is the capacity
to vicariously experience the emotions of others--to actually feel the
emotions being experienced by the other. Obviously, children want to be
loved, and they know that parents are more "loving" if made happy by the
child's behavior. The resulting motivation and efforts by the child to make
the parent happy certainly contribute to the development of empathy, but in
early stages, this "pseudo-empathy" is more associated with the child's
emotions, not the parent's.
> If you want him
> to be 'fully rational,' why not accept that he wants that for himself
> too, and help him to learn how to be that way? As Locke put it, "The
> sooner you treat him like a man, the sooner he will be one."
Agreed.
But I am disappointed that you maintain that children are fully rational
from birth. That position, of course, requires you to accord children the
same rights as adults.
I should add that I'm cognizant of the position taken by such libertarians
as Rothbard that full rights should be accorded to children, even fetuses,
because of their potential humanity and because of the practical
impossibility of determining exactly when the potential human become fully
human. There is considerable merit to this position, because it errs on the
side of caution.
After all that being said, I must confess that I am unable to think of a
concrete situation where the use of force would, unequivocally, be superior
to reasoning with a child, insofar as his sound development is concerned.
But on the other hand, that is looking with hindsight and assumes that one
can be a perfect parent. (This is a different question, of course, from
that of a parent's use of force in defense of person or property from the
CHILD's aggressive behavior.)
KULP
PascaL
> from birth. That position, of course, requires you to accord children the
> same rights as adults.
>
> I should add that I'm cognizant of the position taken by such libertarians
> as Rothbard that full rights should be accorded to children, even fetuses,
> because of their potential humanity and because of the practical
> impossibility of determining exactly when the potential human become fully
> human. There is considerable merit to this position, because it errs on
the
> side of caution.
I think you're taking the wrong approach in evaluating the act of spanking
and its morality and justification. The problem, that I see, is that you are
evaluating a parental concept (spanking) on politico-ethical grounds. Your
evaluations omit consideration of certain distinguishing characteristics of
the concept of "spanking". Specifically, the characteristics that
distinguish the concept from other forms of violence, and violence itself.
Spanking has, as a distinguishing characteristic (in the context of this
discussion - as opposed to spanking for other purposes), a certain purpose -
that of disciplining a child.
>
> After all that being said, I must confess that I am unable to think of a
> concrete situation where the use of force would, unequivocally, be
superior
> to reasoning with a child, insofar as his sound development is concerned.
Then how can you defend your position of being somewhat sympathetic to idea
that spanking is, or can be, an efficacious form of discipline?
> But on the other hand, that is looking with hindsight and assumes that one
> can be a perfect parent.
One need not be a perfect parent to refrain from spanking children.
That all said. I would like you to define two concepts that you use, for I
believe they are flawed concepts in that they imply a great deal, but
nothing at the same time (at least, in the context that you use them):
1) fully rational:
What is your standard of judgment to evaluate that a being is "fully"
rational?
2) perfect parent:
What is the standard of judgement to evaluate perfection in parenting?
PascaL
>
> PascaL wrote
>
> > I'd venture more than a guess and condemn the parent right out. A child
> for
> > whom verbal admonishments (ie. "repeated warnings") are inefective and
so
> > obviously does not understand the danger of playing near traffic, should
> > NEVER be allowed anywhere near it.
> > It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child's safety,
at
> > all times, until such time as the child is mature and (self)disciplined
> > enough to be responsible for his own safety.
> >
> > Personally, I've taken the position that spanking = immoral until proven
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> I would suggest that "not allowing a child anywhere near danger" is also
> violent, although not so much as "spanking."
You've misquoted me and insodoing have changed the context of my
argument(s).
> Not allowing a child to go
> where he wants to go is tantamount to "false imprisonment."
No it is not, and your statement begs some context.
What if he wants to go to the moon?
What if he wants to go to the local porno shop?
What if he wants to go play near the targets at a firing range?
> In other words,
> whether you employ holding the child or placing him in an enclosure,
> physical restraint is required. Therefore, if "spanking" violates the
> child's rights, the so does "restraint" (i.e., keeping him away from
> danger).
I believe you overemphasize the concept of rights and ignore the
responsibilities of a parent. The two are not contradictory, and can, and
do, co-exist quite well.
You need to distinguish between the responsibilities of a parent and the
responsibilities of a government. The two are indispensible, but quite
mutually exclusive in the context of their responsibilities. Note that the
exclusivity lies in the _context_ of each's responsibilities, not their
responsibilities as such. The government's responsibility is much wider than
the parent's, and the latter's is much more specified. However, the are BOTH
necessary and indispensible.
> It similarly fails to "teach" anything substantive about the
> danger. But, as you implicitly admit, it is sometimes a necessary tactic.
You're right, in your implication that it does not teach the child that
playing near traffic is dangerous. However, using the word "fails" implies
that that was my purpose in restricting his freedom of action, which it was
not. The purpose of restricting a child's freedom of action, in this
context, is to ensure his safety - not to teach him about the dangers of
traffic.
Teaching a child about the dangers of traffic is a different issue that
needs a more specific context. The child's age, disciplinary skills and
mental capacity need be taken into account, as well as the parent's ability
to convey the dangers of playing around traffic, amoung other important
considerations.